301 - Non legal entity for HOB

RULING_-OS-BKI-24-170.8-2013_-_CLARENCE_FU_V._HSE_OF_BISHOP.pdf

February 21, 2014 - 8:26 am joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I think must pay up before the Appeal can be valid and this payment would be an ILLEGaL issue.

February 20, 2014 - 5:15 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I think paying the cost to the Court to the defendant without legal identity is itself an illegal order and this item is itself an issue to be dealt with in the appeal. It would be interesting how the appeal would proceed.




Any legal opinion on the impact of the Court case by Fu & Liew if this appeal goes forward within 30 days before 27 February?.  The Court case applied for the release of the Report of the PAC.  So we can vote for the polls but release it only after it is known no appeal is filed with the Appeal Court.  Once released, the "no legal entity" cannot sue - a boomerang of sort.

Can my case against Albert CF Vun be reviewed and refiled now?

It is a very important matter for the Anglican churches in South East Asia.

What is the real meaning of “Non legal entity” for Province of Anglican Churches in South East Asia?

I do not have access to the Court documents of the case of Fu and Liew as Plaintiffs against the House of Bishops of Province of Anglican Churches in South East Asia (APSEA) and the three bishops in the  APSEA including the Archbishop of APSEA.

                                                                                                            

What ‘Non legal entity” means in legal term is that HoB of APSEA is not a corporate body and so what the HoB does is not legal and has no legal status to do anything in the legal context hence it is illegal.

HoB maybe a lose body to manage the four Anglican Dioceses in South East Asia namely Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya).  Being British colonies, all Bishops are likely corporatized by what we have Certificate of Incorporation under Trustees Incorporation Ordinance (Sabah cap 148).  Each of the four bishops would have their incorporation individually that way.

So it would appear that HOBs of APSEA would not go through such incorporation process for the four dioceses.

So going by the legal understanding, is it right to interpret that whatever done by HoBs of APSEA is illegal as it may be ‘partnership’ of sort but not incorporated.

If whatever done by a non legal entity is illegal hence AVCF is not legal Bishop of Sabah unless it was done by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So if AVCF was illegal as it was argued by my learned counsel and me, then my case against AVCF should be reviewed in the latest development without the need of Government Proceeding Act 1958 and no wrong party or wrong parties at all.  My locus standi as a member of ADOS by virtue of a member of All Saints’ Cathedral would have succeeded.

What say my learned friends especially those in the legal fraternity.

Prepared by Joshua Y. C. Kong a layman.    8^th of February, 2014.