Read the full judgment text of CACV 259A/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 19 May 2015 before 張澤祐, 關淑馨, 朱芬齡.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – s.22(1)(b) Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – whether question of great general or public importance – whether arguable grounds – whether exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of residual discretion under 'or other reasons' – summary judgment under RHC O.14 – District Court granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor for HK$130,000 – defendant appealed to Court of Appeal – Court of Appeal allowed appeal, set aside summary judgment, and granted defendant unconditional leave to defend – plaintiff in person applied for leave to appeal to CFA – no concrete question of public importance identified – well-established principles on treatment of factual disputes in summary judgment applications did not require reconsideration – plaintiff made serious unsupported allegations against the defendant, her brother, the police, and the appellate judges – Court of Appeal's reliance on police statement as documentary evidence on summary judgment application was not improper – application refused under s.22(1)(b) – costs on party-and-party basis – lump sum assessment of HK$46,300 reduced from HK$64,300 claimed – HK$30,000 attributable to counsel – assessment under Legal Aid Regulations – reference to Chao Keh Lung v Don Xia (2004) 7 HKCFAR 260
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) · Costs of the unsuccessful leave application
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused. The plaintiff's application was dismissed.
Cited by 51 cases · Cites 1 case