Prior to the establishment of the Court of Appeal in 1976, a Full Court consisting of first instance High Court judges was constituted to hear appeals.[1]
Cases in the Court of Appeal are decided by a bench consisting of one, two or three Judges. On rare occasions, having regard to the public importance of the issue, the Court of Appeal has been constituted by a division of five Judges.[2][3] Final substantive appeal hearings take place before a bench of three Judges. In civil cases, interlocutory appeals and leave to appeal application hearings take place before a bench of two Judges.[4] A single Judge can grant leave to appeal on a paper application and make procedural orders/directions not involving the determination of an appeal.[5] In criminal cases, appeals against sentence take place before a bench of two Judges[6] and leave to appeal application hearings take place before a single Judge.[7] A decision by a two-member bench of the Court of Appeal has the same binding precedential value as a decision by a three-member bench of the Court of Appeal[8][9] or a five-member bench of the Court of Appeal.[10] If a case is heard by a two-member bench and the two Judges differ on the outcome, then the lower court's judgment or order will not be disturbed.[11] In such a situation, any party can apply for the case to be re-heard by an uneven number of Judges in the Court of Appeal.[12][13]
A Judge of the Court of First Instance may also sit as a Judge in the Court of Appeal,[14] including as a single Judge (for example, when determining applications for leave to appeal in criminal cases).[15]
In August 2022, the court ruled that same-sex marriages overseas would not be recognized as valid in Hong Kong, resulting in no rights or benefits given to married couples in Hong Kong.[16]
In November 2022, the court ruled that there are minimum jail sentences for "serious" national security offenses.[17]
^See, for example, Eugene Jae-Hoon Oh v Kate Gaskell Richdale, CACV 162/2003, reported at [2005] 2 HKLRD 285, in which Ma CJHC and Cheung JA disagreed on the outcome. The case was subsequently re-heard before Woo VP, Le Pichon JA and Chung J in Eugene Jae-Hoon Oh v Kate Gaskell Richdale, CACV 162/2003.