 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(November 2024) |
In legal procedure, a leapfrog appeal is a special and relatively rare form of appeal in which a case is appealed directly from a lower court to a higher court, skipping an intermediate appellate court. For example, in England & Wales, an appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court, thereby skipping the Court of Appeal.
As stated above, a leapfrog appeal may be brought from the High Court to the Supreme Court (or previously the House of Lords), thereby skipping the Court of Appeal. [1]
The procedure is governed by Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 as amended. In summary, if the High Court judge considers that the relevant conditions are met, and that the case is suitable for a leapfrog appeal, then they may grant a certificate to that effect (section 12(1) of the Act). If a certificate is granted, any of the parties to the proceedings may apply to the Supreme Court for leave to make a leapfrog appeal, which if granted enables the leapfrog appeal to take place (section 13).
The High Court judge may not grant a certificate unless the "relevant conditions" in section 12(3), or the "alternative conditions" in section 12(3A) are met. The "relevant conditions in section 12(3) are that:
a point of law of general public importance is involved in that decision and that that point of law either—
(a) relates wholly or mainly to the construction of an enactment or of a statutory instrument, and has been fully argued in the proceedings and fully considered in the judgment of the judge in the proceedings, or
(b) is one in respect of which the judge is bound by a decision of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court in previous proceedings, and was fully considered in the judgments given by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) in those previous proceedings.
The "alternative conditions" in section 12(3A) are that:
a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and that—
(a) the proceedings entail a decision relating to a matter of national importance or consideration of such a matter,
(b) the result of the proceedings is so significant (whether considered on its own or together with other proceedings or likely proceedings) that, in the opinion of the judge, a hearing by the Supreme Court is justified, or
(c) the judge is satisfied that the benefits of earlier consideration by the Supreme Court outweigh the benefits of consideration by the Court of Appeal.
Key contemporary examples include the leapfrog appeals in the Miller case, and the Cherry and Miller joint cases, both major judicial review appeals heard by the Supreme Court en banc.
Under the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, certain civil appeals from the Court of First Instance may be made directly to the Court of Final Appeal, skipping the Court of Appeal. [2]
Article 35.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland provides for a leapfrog appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court, thereby skipping the Court of Appeal.
Under Article 35.5.4, a leapfrog appeal may be brought if the Supreme Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal to it, and either the decision of the High Court involves a matter of general public importance, or the interests of justice require.
The US equivalent of a leapfrog appeal is certiorari before judgment, a procedure under which the Supreme Court of the United States is asked to immediately review the decision of a United States District Court, without an appeal having been decided by a United States Court of Appeals, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and obtaining a final decision.
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) is the final appellate court of Hong Kong. It was established on 1 July 1997, upon the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the highest judicial institution under Hong Kong law. As defined in Articles 19 and 85 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the Court of Final Appeal "exercises judicial power in the Region independently and free from any interference." The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules set out the detailed functions and procedures of the court.
The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the judicial branch of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it exercises the judicial power of the Region and is independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The courts in Hong Kong hear and adjudicate all prosecutions and civil disputes, including all public and private law matters.
The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and case law made by decisions of the courts of Hong Kong.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a part of the legal system of Hong Kong. It consists of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance; it deals with criminal and civil cases which have risen beyond the lower courts. It is a superior court of record of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. It was named the Supreme Court before 1997. Though previously named the Supreme Court, this Court has long been the local equivalent to the Senior Courts of England and Wales and has never been vested with the power of final adjudication.
The Court of Appeal of the High Court of Hong Kong is the second most senior court in the Hong Kong legal system. It deals with appeals on all civil and criminal cases from the Court of First Instance and the District Court. It is one of two courts that makes up the High Court of Hong Kong. Sometimes criminal appeals from Magistrates' Courts with general public importance are also dealt with in the Court of Appeal, either by referral by a single judge from the Court of First Instance, or upon granting of leave on application for review by the Secretary for Justice.
The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the highest court in the judicial system of Singapore. It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the lower being the High Court. The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice, who is the president of the Court, and the judges of the Court of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building.
The Supreme Court of Finland, located in Helsinki, is the court of last resort for cases within the private law of Finland. The Court's counterpart is the Supreme Administrative Court, which is the court of last resort for cases within the administrative law.
Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.
A petition for certiorari before judgment, in the Supreme Court of the United States, is a petition for a writ of certiorari in which the Supreme Court is asked to immediately review the decision of a United States District Court, without an appeal having been decided by a United States Court of Appeals, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and obtaining a final decision.
Mehram Ali v. Federation Pakistan is considered to be an important judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan and marked the importance of the independence of a judiciary, particularly in reference to the Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List. It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic ordinances as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ; secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law.
Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong. Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.
Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC); 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC) is an important case in the South African law of medicine, constitutional law, constitutional litigation and criminal procedure.
Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.
Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.
Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents had acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.
 | This article needs additional or more specific categories .(September 2023) |