劉 對 冼
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2161/2015 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before 彭家光.
Civil procedure – District Court – Leave to appeal – Joining third parties – Prima facie case – Trial delay – Costs – Stay of execution – Petitioner's application refused – Costs awarded to Respondent. The Petitioner (Female) sought leave to appeal a judgment dated 3 August 2020 which dismissed her application to join third parties, Ms Wong and RTDL. The Petitioner argued the judge erred in requiring evidence of a prima facie case at this stage and wrongly considered trial delay as a factor against her. The Court held that the legal principle applied was correct, focusing on whether there was a true claim and an appropriate issue to be tried. The Court analyzed the evidence submitted without making factual findings on disputed issues. The Court found no evidence supported the two issues raised by the Petitioner, concluding there was no reasonable chance of success on appeal. Regarding trial delay, the Court noted dates had been delayed repeatedly and arrangements should be made as soon as possible, which was a proper consideration. The Court refused leave to appeal as there were no reasonable grounds or reasons for justice. The Court also refused the stay of execution as the Petitioner could not meet the conditions. The Court ordered the Petitioner to pay the Respondent's costs of the application, reserved until 14 days after judgment.
Legal issues: Requirement of prima facie case for joining third parties · Consideration of trial delay
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; Stay of execution refused; Costs awarded to Respondent.
Cites 2 cases
|
FCMC 2161/2015 [2020] HKFC 185 香港特別行政區 區域法院 婚姻訴訟案件編號2015年第2161宗
主審法官︰ 區域法院法官彭家光（書面處理） 呈請人（擬上訴人）陳述書日期︰ 2020年8月17日 答辯人陳述書日期︰ 2020年9月5日 判決書頒發日期︰ 2020年9月17日 ------------------------- 判 決 書 ( 上訴許可申請 ) ------------------------- 1.在2020年8月3日，本席頒下判決書（‘判決書’）作出頒令撤銷呈請人（擬上訴人）（‘女方’）之加入第三方申請。 2.在2020年8月17日，女方以傳票申請上訴許可對判決提出上訴及要求暫緩執行判決。女方的草擬上訴理由包括以下兩點︰
3.就女方之擬上訴理由，本席有以下的看法︰
4.在考慮女方的上訴許可申請時，須首先考慮香港法例第336章《區域法院條例》第63A條的條文。本席將有關法例節錄如下︰ -
5.經小心考慮以後，本席認為女方並沒有提出任何可行的上訴理由，她的上訴並無合理會得直，也看不到任何有利於秉行公正的理由，應進行上訴聆訊。本席拒絕女方的上訴許可申請。 6.在上文 ，本席認為女方所有擬上訴理由都沒有合理成功機會，女方不能夠達成暫緩執行判決之起碼條件︰Star Play Development Ltd v Bess Fashion Management Co Ltd [2007] 5 HKC 84, para 9(6), per Ma J。本席拒絕女方要求暫緩執行判決之申請。 7.女方的申請失敗。本席現頒令女方須付男方本申請之訟費命令包括保留訟費，連同大律師證書。這是一個暫准命令，如雙方在判決書頒發後14天內沒有任何申請，暫准訟費命令將轉為絕對命令。
呈請人（擬上訴人）： 由鄭煥新蔡秀蓮律師事務所轉聘嚴永錚大律師及梁懿瑪大律師代表 答辯人： 由葉美好律師行轉聘朱偉基大律師代表 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 2161/2015