Shared (Asia Pacific) Limited v Zn v Secretary For Justice And Others

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date15 Oct 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFA 35
Judgement NumberFACV4/2019
SubjectFinal Appeal (Civil)
FACV4/2019 SHARED (ASIA PACIFIC) LIMITED v. ZN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

FACV No. 4 of 2019

[2019] HKCFA 35

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2019 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 14 OF 2017)

_________________________

BETWEEN
ZN Appellant
and
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 1st Respondent
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION 2nd Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 3rd Respondent
COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR 4th Respondent
and
Shared (Asia Pacific) Limited Intended Intervener

_________________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ
Date of Determination: 15 October 2019

_________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

_________________________

The Appeal Committee:

1. By summons dated 2 September 2019, Shared (Asia Pacific) Limited applies, as Intended Intervener, to be joined as a party to this appeal and to be heard at the hearing. The substantive appeal by ZN against the Secretary for Justice and three other parties is due to be heard by the Court on 4 December 2019.

2. Directions were given that the Intended Intervener’s summons be determined by a single permanent judge on paper without an oral hearing unless otherwise directed and a timetable was fixed for the exchange of affirmations and/or submissions by the parties to the appeal and the Intended Intervener.

3. The Intended Intervener’s summons was supported by an affirmation.[1] Pursuant to the directions referred to, written submissions have been filed on behalf of respectively the appellant, ZN, and also the respondents dated 25 September 2019. Further, written submissions in reply have been filed on behalf of the Intended Intervener dated 2 October 2019.

4. At the direction of a single permanent judge,[2] the summons has been placed before the Appeal Committee for determination on the papers.

5. The Intended Intervener has not taken part in the proceedings to date. It was not a party before the judge who heard the appellant’s application for judicial review.[3] Prior to the hearing in the Court of Appeal on appeal from the judgment of Zervos J (as he then was), the Intended Intervener applied to intervene in the appeal hearing. That application was refused by the Court of Appeal[4] and the appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT