上訴法庭完成審理後能否重新頒布判決？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING v HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Rogers 副庭長及 Le Pichon 上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2004年6月3日 ### 案情摘要 本案始於1990年，原告向被告追討土地管有權，聲稱該土地以按年租賃形式租予被告。被告則辯稱其有權基於原告的許可繼續佔用土地。此案曾於2002年12月11日由上訴法庭作出判決，推翻了原訟法庭法官的命令，並將案件發還原訟法庭繼續審理。其後，雙方曾就上訴法庭的判決申請上訴至終審法院，終審法院曾就原訟法庭的判決屬最終判決還是非最終判決（interlocutory judgment）提出管轄權疑慮，並建議上訴法庭重新頒布判決及批予上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點在於上訴法庭是否有管轄權，在已完成審理並頒布判決後，應終審法院的建議重新頒布判決及批予上訴許可。終審法院曾建議上訴法庭根據《高等法院條例》第34B(4)(c)條，由兩名上訴法庭法官審理上訴，並重新頒布判決。上訴法庭需要釐清其在案件已完結並命令已蓋章存檔後，是否仍有權力採取進一步行動。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，一旦法庭已完成審理案件並頒布判決，且相關命令已蓋章存檔，除非該判決被撤銷或根據「筆誤原則」（slip rule）作出修正，否則法庭無權重新審理或頒布新的判決。法庭強調，終審法院為確保其管轄權基礎穩固而要求上訴法庭重新頒布判決，但上訴法庭無權執行此舉。法庭亦指出，判斷案件屬「最終判決」還是「非最終判決」應採用「申請測試」（application test），即審視判決是否最終解決了案件中的某個爭議點。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co. Ltd & Another (2003) 6 HKCFAR 222，該案例確立了判斷判決屬「最終判決」還是「非最終判決」的「申請測試」（application test）。此測試對於釐清上訴法庭的管轄權至關重要，尤其是在決定是否可以由兩名法官審理上訴時。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭最終未有應終審法院的建議重新頒布判決或批予上訴許可。雙方律師在法庭建議下，同意不爭議原訟法庭法官的判決為非最終判決，且上訴法庭的審理為非最終上訴。因此，雙方未有繼續申請撤銷上訴法庭的判決。上訴法庭重申其已完成職責，無權再作處理。 ### 判決啟示 本案突顯了香港司法體系中，上訴法庭在完成審理並頒布判決後，其管轄權的界限。即使終審法院為確保自身管轄權穩固而提出建議，上訴法庭亦不能在缺乏法律依據的情況下重新審理或頒布判決。判斷判決屬「最終判決」或「非最終判決」的「申請測試」對於上訴程序及法庭構成具有實質影響。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING v HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA - Date of Judgment: 3 June 2004 ### Factual Background This action commenced in 1990, with the plaintiffs claiming possession of land allegedly let to the defendant on a yearly tenancy. The defendant claimed entitlement to remain on the land by permission. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled on 11 December 2002, setting aside a High Court judge's order and remitting the case to the Court of First Instance. Subsequently, applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal were made. The CFA raised concerns about whether the High Court judge's judgment was interlocutory or final, suggesting the Court of Appeal re-hand down its judgment and grant leave to appeal to ensure jurisdictional certainty. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to re-hand down its judgment and grant leave to appeal, as suggested by the Court of Final Appeal, after it had already completed its task, delivered its judgment, and had the order perfected and filed. The CFA had suggested the Court of Appeal proceed with two Justices of Appeal under section 34B(4)(c) of the High Court Ordinance. The Court of Appeal needed to determine its power to act further once its function was concluded. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that once a court has completed its task by hearing a matter and making its order, and that order has been perfected and filed, it has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter unless its judgment is set aside or a further order can be made under the slip rule. The court emphasized that the CFA's attempt to establish a firm jurisdictional footing by asking the CA to re-hand down a judgment was beyond the CA's powers. The court also reiterated that the 'application test' is used to determine whether a judgment is final or interlocutory, by assessing if it finally disposes of an issue in the case. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co. Ltd & Another (2003) 6 HKCFAR 222. This precedent was crucial for establishing the 'application test' to determine whether a judgment is final or interlocutory. This test is significant for jurisdictional matters, particularly in deciding whether an appeal can be heard by two judges as per section 34B(4) of the High Court Ordinance. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal did not proceed to re-hand down its judgment or grant leave to appeal as suggested by the Court of Final Appeal. Following the court's invitation, counsel for both parties agreed not to argue that the High Court judge's judgment was anything other than interlocutory, and that the appeal before the Court of Appeal was also interlocutory. Consequently, neither party pursued an application to set aside the Court of Appeal's previous judgment. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that it had completed its function and had no further jurisdiction. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Appeal once it has completed its judicial function and its orders are perfected. Even when the Court of Final Appeal seeks to ensure its own jurisdictional certainty, the Court of Appeal cannot act without legal authority. The 'application test' for determining whether a judgment is final or interlocutory has significant implications for appeal procedures and the constitution of the court. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.