Read the full judgment text of CAMP 281/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 May 2023 before 袁家寧, 區慶祥.
Civil Procedure – Leave to appeal – Late application – Maintenance – Consent order – Medical evidence – CSSA – Costs – Court of Appeal – High Court. The Petitioner sought leave to appeal an original judgment regarding maintenance payments. The application was made late, exceeding the 14-day limit under O.58 r.2(4A) of the Rules of the District Court. The Court of Appeal considered the length of delay, reasons, strength of appeal, and impact on the Respondent. The Petitioner failed to explain the delay of over three months. The proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success as the original judge's findings on evidence were factual determinations. The Petitioner claimed unemployment and medical conditions but provided insufficient objective medical evidence or documentary proof of income. Bank records showing large transactions were not adequately explained. The request for new evidence from the Social Welfare Department was rejected as it did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria. Leave to appeal was refused. The Petitioner was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of $1,000. No further application to reconsider was permitted under O.59 r.2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court.
Legal issues: Late application for leave to appeal · Real prospect of success · Sufficiency of medical and financial evidence · Admissibility of new evidence
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused.
Cites 1 case