方素豪 對 法律援助署

方素豪 對 法律援助署

The application for leave to appeal was refused because it plainly contravened the 2019 restriction order and failed to meet the statutory threshold in section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484 (it did not involve matters of general or public importance); the summons to change the named defendant was dismissed because, with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 167
Parties
Appellant: 方素豪; Respondent: 法律援助署; Proposed Defendant: 梁秀美; Proposed Defendant: 羅頌明
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Case Number
CACV262/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and Summons to Change Defendant
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; summons to change defendant revoked/dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Restriction of Appeals Order, Party Substitution, Compliance With Statutory Threshold for Leave (s22(1)(b) Cap 484)
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeal Administrative Law Leave to Appeal Restriction of Appeals Order Party Substitution Compliance With Statutory Threshold for Leave (s22(1)(b) Cap 484)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

方素豪

Appellant

法律援助署

Respondent

梁秀美

Proposed Defendant

羅頌明

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and Summons to Change Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal breached the 2019 restriction order
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal satisfies section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (involving matters of general or public importance)
  3. 3 Whether there is any reasonable basis to grant the summons to change the named defendant after the notice of appeal was struck and the appeal withdrawn

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because it plainly contravened the 2019 restriction order and failed to meet the statutory threshold in section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484 (it did not involve matters of general or public importance); the summons to change the named defendant was dismissed because, with the notice of appeal struck and the appeal withdrawn, there was no reasonable basis for substitution.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; summons to change defendant revoked/dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
  • Summons dated 15 January 2024 seeking to change the defendant to 梁秀美 and 羅頌明 is dismissed/revoked.