Desir, Anthony C v. Knight Frank (Services) Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCSA 36/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 17 February 2014 before Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng.
Civil law – small claims – leave to appeal – threshold test – whether grounds are arguable – appeal from Small Claims Tribunal Claim No 31038 of 2012 – whether the learned adjudicator may have erred in law in reaching his conclusion – claimant acting in person – consideration of amended application and oral submissions – whether granting leave prophesies success at the appeal proper – Court of First Instance granting leave to appeal with costs in the cause – matter to proceed to appeal proper – Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers – ruling dated 17 February 2014 – High Court Small Claims Tribunal Appeal No 36 of 2013
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Small Claims Tribunal
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted to the claimant on the grounds set out in the amended application; the matter is to proceed to appeal proper.
Cites 1 case
|
HCSA 36/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 36 OF 2013 (ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 31038 OF 2012) ____________________
____________________
____________________ R U L I N G ____________________ 1.I have considered the amended application for leave to appeal setting out the various grounds and also heard Mr Desir’s oral submissions before me today. 2.Having carefully considered the threshold test for granting leave to appeal and the evidence and documents which Mr Desir has brought my attention to, I consider that the amended grounds that he has now put forward have reached the threshold test of being arguable in the sense that it is not fanciful that the learned adjudicator may have erred in law in reaching his conclusion. I therefore grant leave to appeal. 3.Since the matter is to proceed to appeal proper it is inappropriate for me now to dwell on the merits but I should remind Mr Desir, who is acting in person, that the granting of leave to appeal does not necessarily prophecy success at the appeal proper since the court has yet to be persuaded by both parties at the appeal on the merits of the points of law put forward. 4.Leave be granted to Mr Desir to appeal on the grounds set out in the amended application for leave to appeal. 5.Costs of the application be costs in the cause of the appeal.
The claimant appeared in person | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCSA 36/2013