Read the full judgment text of CACV 342/2022, CACV 343/2022, CACV 463/2022, CACV 464/2022, CACV 487/2022, CACV 488/2022, CACV 35/2023, CACV 36/2023, CACV 80/2023, CACV 81/2023, CACV 105/2023, CAMP 334/2023, CAMP 364/2023, CAMP 365/2023 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 November 2024 before 區慶祥, 林雲浩, 周家明.
Civil appeal – striking out of appeals against costs-only orders for non-compliance with s.14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance – leave to appeal under s.14AA(4) – repeat arguments previously rejected – property law – sale by administrator under Probate and Administration Ordinance – abuse of process – limitation on appellate intervention in costs assessment – application of costs follow the event. Property transaction and inheritance – administrators signing sale agreement and assignment of deceased's estate property – whether transfer void for lack of government lease approval – whether administrator has authority to sell. The appeal concerned a property at 5 Luk Hop Street, Fanling, purchased by Source View in 2009 from Mr Tang and his mother as administrators of Mr Tang's deceased father's estate. The appellant's central contention was that the sale agreement and assignment were void because the administrators (rather than registered owners) signed them and the government lease required prior approval for transfer. Whether appeals against costs-only orders should be struck out for failure to obtain leave as required by s.14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance – held yes, as no leave was sought from either the lower court or the Court of Appeal. Whether the appellant had met the threshold for leave to appeal under s.14AA(4) – held no, as the proposed grounds merely re-argued points already rejected. Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with costs assessments – held no, as the appellant failed to show any error in the exercise of discretion. Whether the property sale by administrators was valid – held yes, under ss.62 and 65 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10) and ss.2 and 13 of the Trustee Ordinance (Cap 29), the sale was lawful and binding. All appeals and leave applications were dismissed or struck out, with costs awarded to Source View of HK$110,000 on summary assessment.
Legal issues: Requirement of leave for appeals against costs-only orders under s.14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance · Test for granting leave to appeal under s.14AA(4) of the High Court Ordinance · Limitation on appellate intervention in costs assessments · Requirement to first apply for leave in the lower court before approaching the Court of Appeal · Validity of property sale and transfer by administrator
Outcome: All eleven appeals and three leave applications by Mr Tang are dismissed or struck out. Mr Tang's appeals (CACV 342/2022, CACV 343/2022, CACV 487/2022, CACV 488/2022) are dismissed, and his other appeals and leave applications (CACV 35/2023, CACV 36/2023, CACV 80/2023, CACV 81/2023, CACV 463/2022, CACV 464/2022, CACV 105/2023, CAMP 334/2023, CAMP 364/2023, CAMP 365/2023) are struck out.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 20 cases