CO129-469 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [9-12] — Page 509

500

-3-

of the Supreme Court an action brought under the Rents Ordinance.

A case had occurred where two actions were pending relating to the

same premises, one in original jurisdiction, and the other in

summary jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of the

Rente Ordinance, 1921. Neither action could be transferred to

the other jurisdiction for the purpose of consolidation, and yet

consolidation seemed practically a necessity. A large sum of

It was this case which led to the drafting

money was involved.

of the section, but it is quite possible that other similar cases

In the above case both sides asked for the auendment

may occur.

of the principal Ordinance.

7.

Sub-section (2) of section 4 is necessary because court is

defined in the principal Ordinance is meaning Supreme Court in

ite summary jurisdiction.

8.

A special explanation of sub-section (3) of section 4 seems

desirable. The principal Ordinance, which contemplates only a

trial in the summary jurisdiction, provides for an appeal from the

eu mary jurisdiction to the full court of two judges. Speaking

generally, however, the Full Courts Ordinance, 1912, provides that

all appeals from the original jurisdiction, except interlocutory

appeals, must be to the full court of three judges. Sub-section

(3) of section of the ordinance applies the Wall provisions of

the Full Court Ordinance, 1912, to any action transferred under

sub-section (1) of section 4. The objection to making the appeal

in such a transferred action lie to the full court of two judges

is that it would in that case be necessary to provide that the

appeal in any original jurisdiction action consolidated with the

transferred action should also lie to the full court of two judges.

that It is certainly an objection to sub-section (3) of section 4 an appeal to the full court of three judges places additional delay