Cml 訴 Lmh
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1743/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 March 2009 before 張澤祐 JA, 袁家寧 JA.
Civil appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – application by CML for leave to appeal to CFA from Court of Appeal's refusal to grant her leave to appeal out of time from District Court decision in DCMC 655/2004 – whether further appeal to CFA lies where Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal – held, following HLF and MTC and LHN [2004] 3 HKLRD 241, that refusal of leave by Court of Appeal means underlying decision is not one from which further appeal to CFA lies – whether statutory requirements under s.22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are met – whether claim reaches HK$1,000,000 monetary threshold – whether matter involves great general or public importance – applicant failed to satisfy monetary threshold and failed to show any great general or public importance or other reason warranting CFA determination – application refused – reasons handed down by Cheung JA and Yuen JA on 1 April 2009 following hearing on 26 March 2009.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the CFA is available where the Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal · Whether the statutory requirements under s.22(1) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance are satisfied
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCMP 1743/2008 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 案件編號：雜項案件 2008 年第 1743 號 (擬上訴的原本案件編號：區域法院婚姻訴訟 2004 年第 655 號) ----------------------
----------------------
聆訊日期：2009 年 3 月 26 日 判決日期：2009 年 3 月 26 日 判決理由書日期：2009 年 4 月 1 日 判決理由書 上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判決理由書： 1.呈請人就本庭 2009 年 1 月 16 日的判案書提出申請，要求本庭給予許可，讓她向終審法院提出上訴。 2.呈請人的申請源自一項區域法院的判決，她必須就該判決獲得本庭的許可才可向上訴法庭提出上訴。本庭就該申請頒發判案書拒絕給予呈請人逾期上訴許可。 3.根據 HLF and MTC and LHN [2004] 3 HKLRD 241一案，終審法院清楚說明，若上訴法庭拒絕給予上訴許可，這即表示有關的判決不能成為一項可再向終審法院提出上訴的判決。這項指引適用於本案。 4.無論如何，呈請人的申請根本未能符合《香港終審法院條例》（‘《條例》’）（香港法例第 484 章）第 22(1) 條的要求。有關的申索額未達到《條例》所規定的 HK$1,000,000下限。呈請人亦未能顯示案件存有任何重大廣泛或關乎公眾利益的重要性，或有其他理由須交由終審法院審理。 5.基於上述原因，本庭拒絕呈請人的申請。
呈請人：無律師代表，親自出席。 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 1743/2008