Read the full judgment text of CAMP 55/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 August 2018 before 朱芬齡, 潘兆初.
Civil procedure – application for leave to appeal – unless order – non-compliance with Practice Direction 4.1, paras 8-16 – failure to file application bundle and written submissions – application for relief from penalty under O.2 r.4 of Cap 4A – consideration of overall circumstances under O.2 r.5(1) – whether plaintiff had good explanation for non-compliance – whether relief application was promptly made – whether non-compliance was intentional – plaintiff residing in mainland China using Hong Kong hotel as address for service – whether plaintiff had actual knowledge of filing requirements and the deadline – consultation with solicitor before unless order – prospects of success of intended appeal as key consideration – appeal against District Court dismissal of personal injury claim against elderly home – alleged negligence in care, delay in medical treatment, and death of plaintiff's mother – settled principle that Court of Appeal will not lightly disturb trial judge's evaluation of evidence and findings of fact – appellant must show plainly wrong assessment, a high threshold – trial judge's reasons and refusal of leave to appeal – plaintiff's submissions merely repeating her version of facts and challenging defendant's evidence at trial – intended appeal held to have no prospect of success – granting relief would be futile and contrary to interests of justice – relief application dismissed – summons of 20 March 2018 struck out – no order as to costs as second defendant did not respond – order under O.59 r.2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court that no party may request oral hearing for reconsideration under r.2A(7).
Legal issues: Relief from unless order for non-compliance with filing requirements · Prospects of success of intended appeal as factor in granting relief
Outcome: Relief application dismissed; the summons of 20 March 2018 was struck out; the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal remained dismissed.
Cited by 33 cases · Cites 1 case