朱賽金 對 高等法院司法常務官

朱賽金 對 高等法院司法常務官

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any issue of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), presented only personal grievances and unsubstantiated allegations of judicial misconduct that did not constitute arguable grounds of appeal, and therefore the appeal did not warrant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCA 113
Parties
Applicant: 朱賽金; Proposed Respondent: 建議答辯人; Proposed Interested Party: 建議有利害關係的一方; High Court Judicial Officer: 高等法院司法常務官; Director of Legal Aid: 法律援助署署長
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Case Number
CACV39/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Judicial Bias, Public Importance Threshold Under S22(1)(b), Procedural Disposition on Papers
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Appeal Legal Aid Leave to Appeal Judicial Bias Public Importance Threshold Under S22(1)(b) +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

朱賽金

Applicant

建議答辯人

Proposed Respondent

建議有利害關係的一方

Proposed Interested Party

高等法院司法常務官

High Court Judicial Officer

法律援助署署長

Director of Legal Aid

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal raises issues of general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's complaints of judicial bias/misconduct and alleged factual distortions constitute arguable grounds for further appeal
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the material discloses only personal grievances and no substantive legal issue

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any issue of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), presented only personal grievances and unsubstantiated allegations of judicial misconduct that did not constitute arguable grounds of appeal, and therefore the appeal did not warrant referral to the Court of Final Appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
  • The applicant's motion is dismissed.