Mak Hoi Chu v. Lui Chi Yin and Another

Read the full judgment text of DCPI 1861/2009 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 29 November 2010.

1. I think the authorities are clear that the reasonable prospect of success required under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance for leave to appeal to be granted means that the prospects of succeeding in the appeal must be reasonable, therefore, more than not fanciful, but without having to be probable. The applicant for leave is required to show more than just an arguable case, and that the appeal has merits and ought to be heard, although he does not have to demonstrate that the appeal

Cited by 2 cases

1st Defendant\
Case No.DCPI 1861/2009
Court
District Court
Date29 Nov 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCPI 1861/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1861 OF 2009

________________________

BETWEEN

  MAK HOI CHU (麥海珠),
the personal representative of the estate of TAM MO HO (譚毛好), deceased
Plaintiff

and

  LUI CHI YIN 1st Defendant
  THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LIMITED 2nd Defendant
________________________

Before: Her Honour Judge Mimmie Chan in Chambers (open to public)

Date of Hearing: 29 November 2010

Date of Delivery of Decision: 29 November 2010

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.I think the authorities are clear that the reasonable prospect of success required under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance for leave to appeal to be granted means that the prospects of succeeding in the appeal must be reasonable, therefore, more than not fanciful, but without having to be probable. The applicant for leave is required to show more than just an arguable case, and that the appeal has merits and ought to be heard, although he does not have to demonstrate that the appeal will probably succeed.

2.Having heard the submissions, I am unable to say that the 1st Defendant’s appeal has no reasonable prospects of success or no merits at all.  I will accordingly give leave as sought, with costs in the cause of the appeal.

3.Regarding the stay of execution application, the principles are also clear, that the service of a notice of appeal does not by itself have any effect on the right of the successful party to act on a judgment in his favour and to enforce the order of the court below.  The most important consideration in respect of whether a stay of execution should be granted is whether there are strong grounds of the proposed appeal, and that hurdle is higher than that of the chances of success for considering whether leave to appeal should be granted. The court will not grant a stay unless it is satisfied that there are good reasons for doing so.

4.In this case, the 1st Defendant has not shown any good reason at all why a stay should be granted, and therefore, I am not prepared to exercise my discretion in favour of a stay pending the appeal.

(Mimmie Chan)
District Judge

Ms Josephine Tjia, instructed by Messrs Yip, Tse & Tang (assigned by D.L.A.), for the Plaintiff

Miss Anita Chan, of Messrs Y T Chan & Co., for the 1st Defendant

1st Defendant's appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal. Please refer to CACV262/2010 dated 31 August 2011

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCPI 1861/2009