楊天偉 對 香港房屋委員會及另一人

Read the full judgment text of CACV 392/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 August 2022 before Gianna Ku VPJA, Zhu Fenling JA, Au Hing-cheung JA.

Civil appeal – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – public rental housing tenancy – termination of tenancy for breach of condition II(20) requiring continuous residence – Hong Kong Housing Authority – Housing Appeal Panel – judicial review – whether leave to engage CFA jurisdiction under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – whether one-day delay in filing notice of motion should be extended under s.24(5) of Cap 484 – principles for extension of time: length of delay, reasons for delay, strength of proposed grounds, prejudice to other parties – requirement that proposed appeal raise a question of great general or public importance or be otherwise suitable for CFA determination – re-statement of arguments already rejected on appeal not a basis for leave – fresh evidence arising after hearing before administrative tribunal – Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 – rule against reliance in judicial review on evidence not before the decision-maker – whether the lower court applied the correct test on continuous-residence condition – whether the Tribunal's findings were unsupported – alleged mechanical application of Housing Authority policy – new evidence as to wife's relocation, applicant's age and financial circumstances, and son's medical condition – Court of Appeal earlier judgment dismissing substantive appeal at [2022] HKCA 535 – [judgment text] concludes that none of the three proposed grounds identified any issue of general or public importance, that grounds 1 and 2 merely repeated arguments already considered at paras 28-35 and 36-43 of the earlier judgment, that ground 3 relied on new evidence that could not be received, and that the appeal to the CFA is not a re-hearing of appeal arguments – applicant unrepresented; 1st Proposed Respondent represented by Mr Cheung Shun Ling instructed by Fangda Partners (范紀羅江律師行); 2nd Proposed Respondent unrepresented and adopted neutral stance – costs awarded to 2nd Proposed Respondent on summary assessment at HK$57,388, on a basis to be final unless varied within 14 days.

Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; extension of time refused; notice of motion struck out.

Cited by 5 cases · Cites 3 cases