Leung Kit Hing, Doris v. Cho Sik Han Yvette and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 67/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 September 2015.
1. We dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on 12 June 2015. On 10 July 2015, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by a notice of motion. She also filed three affidavits in support of her application. In the evidence, she referred extensively to the procedural history of the matter. Most of the matters set out in the affidavits are irrelevant to the issue pertinent to our decision.
Cited by 8 cases
|
CACV 67/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2013 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1455 OF 2010) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.We dismissed the Applicant’s appeal on 12 June 2015. On 10 July 2015, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by a notice of motion. She also filed three affidavits in support of her application. In the evidence, she referred extensively to the procedural history of the matter. Most of the matters set out in the affidavits are irrelevant to the issue pertinent to our decision. 2.As it should be plain from our judgment of 12 June 2015, we dismissed her appeal on the basis that the Judge below was correct in holding that she had no locus to make the application in her originating summons. It is not necessary to repeat the factual background and the reasoning leading to our conclusions. 3.It is a decision very much on the facts on the present case and it is very clear to us that the Applicant does not have any reasonably arguable ground for contending that she ever has locus in respect of the affairs of the estate, particularly when the beneficiaries having a real interest in the estate (including the 2 sons) have clearly indicated to us that the Applicant did not have any authority to act on their behalf. 4.Nor are we satisfied that the intended appeal raises any question of great general public importance. 5.We also see no legal basis for re-opening the appeal, which is one of relief sought in the notice of motion. 6.In the circumstances, we refuse to grant leave and dismiss the notice of motion.
The applicant acting in person. The 1st and 2nd respondents acting in person. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 67/2013