寶雲閣業主立案法團 對 羅偉健及另二人

寶雲閣業主立案法團 對 羅偉健及另二人

The Court revoked the third respondent’s applications because they were premature and procedurally defective: he had not awaited the Lands Tribunal’s decision on his leave application, he did not demonstrate special circumstances to justify bypassing the lower court, and he had not applied to the Lands Tribunal for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCA 1197
Parties
Applicant: 寶雲閣業主立案法團; First Respondent: Lo Wai Kin 羅偉健; Second Respondent: Mok Pui Hang 莫佩珩; Third Respondent: 羅偉剛
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Case Number
CAMP262/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Lands Tribunal Decision; Interlocutory Applications / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay of Execution of Costs Order (interlocutory)
Outcome
Court revoked the third respondent's summons for leave to appeal and revoked his application for a stay of execution of the costs order; applications dismissed for procedural non‑compliance; directed route to proceed is via the Lands Tribunal or by filing an out‑of‑time summons for leave to appeal.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution of Costs Order, Procedural Compliance, Extension of Time
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Land/building Management Tribunal Costs Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution of Costs Order Procedural Compliance Extension of Time

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

寶雲閣業主立案法團

Applicant

Lo Wai Kin 羅偉健

First Respondent

Mok Pui Hang 莫佩珩

Second Respondent

羅偉剛

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Lands Tribunal Decision; Interlocutory Applications / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay of Execution of Costs Order (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant could apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal before the lower court had decided his leave application
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances justified bypassing the lower court requirement
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should have first applied to the Lands Tribunal for a stay of the costs order before applying to the Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court revoked the third respondent’s applications because they were premature and procedurally defective: he had not awaited the Lands Tribunal’s decision on his leave application, he did not demonstrate special circumstances to justify bypassing the lower court, and he had not applied to the Lands Tribunal for a stay of the costs order; consequently his applications to the Court of Appeal were struck out and he must pursue the proper route (including seeking extension of time if necessary).

Court Disposition

Court revoked the third respondent's summons for leave to appeal and revoked his application for a stay of execution of the costs order; applications dismissed for procedural non‑compliance; directed route to proceed is via the Lands Tribunal or by filing an out‑of‑time summons for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • Revoked the third respondent's leave to appeal application filed in CAMP 262/2023
  • Revoked the third respondent's application for a stay of execution of the costs order