Vsc Steel Co Ltd 訴 Wing Key Construction Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 888/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 20 July 2011 before 陳美蘭.
Civil law – leave to appeal – District Court Ordinance s.63A(2) – reasonable prospect of success – whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal – Ladd v Marshall test – appellate restraint on factual findings. The plaintiff sued the defendant in DCCJ 888/2010 over a cheque issued by the defendant. The defendant contended that the cheque was issued by mistake by its director Mr Lai. The trial judge rejected the contention and gave judgment for the plaintiff on 13 June 2011. The defendant applied for leave to appeal and for a stay of execution. Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, requiring a reasonable prospect of success or other reasons in the interests of justice – the court held that the defendant had merely repeated arguments already addressed at trial, without identifying any error in fact or law. Under the principle in 丁國強 訴 譚狄遠（譯音）[2002] HKCFAR 336, an appellate court will not lightly interfere with a trial judge's factual findings unless plainly wrong. Whether fresh evidence in Ms Wu's affidavit should be admitted on appeal under the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 three-condition test (reasonable diligence, important influence on result, apparent credibility) – the court held that the conditions were not satisfied because the matters were long available, the defendant gave no reason for not raising them at trial, and the new bank statement did not relate to the account on which the cheque was drawn and would not have materially affected the result, since the court's decision rested on a finding that the cheque was not issued by mistake rather than on insufficient funds. The application for leave to appeal was refused, the application for stay of execution was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff's application.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance · Whether fresh evidence from Ms Wu's affidavit should be admitted on appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; application for stay of execution of the original judgment dismissed.
Cited by 586 cases
|
DCCJ888/2010 香港特別行政區 區域法院 民事訴訟2010年第888號 ------------
------------ 主審法官：區域法院法官陳美蘭內庭聆訊（公開） 聆訊日期：2011年7月20日 宣讀判決書日期：2011年7月20日 判決書 1.被告永基建築有限公司向本席申請批予許可，就本席在2011年6月13日頒下的判決提出上訴。被告同時申請暫緩執行原審判決。 2.根據《區域法院條例》第63A條第2款，法庭除非信納有關上訴有合理機會得直，或者有其他有利於秉行公正的理由，因而該上訴應進行聆訊，否則不得批予上訴許可。 3.被告主要的上訴理由是重申其在審訊時的主張和陳詞，指案中支票是由被告董事黎先生錯誤發出。本席已就此案題作出判決，及在判決書列出詳細理由。被告未能提出，判決在事實分析或法律觀點上本席如何出錯。 4.針對事實裁斷而提出的上訴理據，依據終審法院在丁國強訴譚狄遠（譯音）[2002] HKCFAR 336一案中的判決，除非上訴法庭信納原審法官的事實裁斷是明顯錯誤，否則上訴法庭不可輕易干預原審的事實裁定。 5.基於上述法理原則，本席認為被告再重提原審的證供和陳詞作為針對基本事實裁斷，並不構成有合理成功上訴機會的上訴理據。 6.被告在胡女士的誓章中，嘗試提出審訊時並未提及的新事實指稱及證據。有關提呈和採納新證據的法理原則，可見Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489一案訂下的三個條件：第一，上訴人必須證明他未能在合理的努力下，搜集該新證據於原審訊時採用；第二，如採用該新證據，該證據對案件的結果有重要影響，但毋須是決定性的影響；第三，該新證據必須是表面上可信，但毋須是不可爭議的證據。 7.考慮了胡女士的誓章及其陳詞，本席接受原告律師的陳詞，胡女士誓章提及的事項是早已發生的，沒有任何理由不能在原審時提出，而被告亦沒有提出任何理由解釋為何不能在原審時提交這些證據。 8.再者，本席認為被告人提出的新事項，對案件的結果沒有重大的影響。被告嘗試以新提出的銀行月結單，顯示被告的銀行戶口是有足夠結餘兌現案中的退票。但胡女士提出的證物A是中國銀行（香港）的一頁月結單，單上並無顯示戶口持有人是誰，而本案的退票是被告人從中信嘉華銀行的戶口簽發的。 9.姑勿論被告銀行戶口是否有足夠錢兌現其發出的支票，本席的裁決並非基於被告沒有錢兌現發出的支票，而是基於黎先生及被告並沒有錯誤地發出該支票。 10.本席認為，被告沒有合理成功機會達成Ladd v Marshall一案提及在上訴時援引新證據的條件。 11.本席因此未能從被告的誓章及陳詞察覺到任何理據是有合理上訴得直機會。本席亦未能察覺有任何其他原因進行上訴的聆訊。本席因此不批予上訴許可，並駁回暫緩執行判決的申請。 12.被告人需要支付原告人是次申請的訟費。
原告人：由呂羅律師事務所呂沛聰律師代表 被告人：無律師代表，由董事胡金玉女士應訊 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 888/2010