Read the full judgment text of CACV 101/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 January 2021 before 林文翰 (VP), 袁家寧 JA.
Civil appeal – application for extension of time to file notice of appeal – striking-out orders – res judicata – issue estoppel – Crown Proceedings Ordinance (Cap 300) s.4(5) – Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) s.27(4) – whether extension of time should be granted – four-factor test – length of delay, reasons for delay, prospects of success, prejudice to respondent – self-represented litigant – finality of litigation – insurance policy dispute previously litigated through District Court and Court of Final Appeal. Facts: Applicant was dissatisfied with an insurance policy issued by Manulife and previously sued in DCCJ4133/2009, losing on appeal in HCMP114/2012 and FAMV17/2012, with the Court of Final Appeal giving final judgment in 2013. She re-commenced HCA837/2019 in 2019 against Manulife and the HKSAR Government, alleging Government liability for judicial conduct. Issue 1: Whether extension of time to file notice of appeal should be granted – held no, the application was dismissed because the underlying appeal had no prospect of success. Issue 2: Whether claim against the 1st defendant (Manulife) is barred by res judicata and issue estoppel – held yes, the claim was correctly struck out as the insurance policy dispute was the subject of a final judgment in FAMV17/2012, and the statement of claim relied on a non-existent cause of action termed 'criminal tort'. Issue 3: Whether claim against the 2nd defendant (HKSAR Government) is barred by s.4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance (Cap 300) – held yes, the claim was correctly struck out as the applicant's complaints related to judges discharging judicial functions; further, the claim was time-barred under s.27(4) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), following 莊裕安對關淑馨 [2019] HKCA 898. Outcome: Extension of time application dismissed; no costs order made as respondents did not provide submissions.
Legal issues: Whether to grant extension of time to file notice of appeal against striking-out orders · Whether the claim against the 1st defendant (Manulife) is barred by res judicata and issue estoppel · Whether the claim against the 2nd defendant (HKSAR Government) is barred by s.4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance
Outcome: Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal dismissed; no order as to costs since the respondents did not provide submissions
Cited by 16 cases · Cites 5 cases