朱賽金 對 華佩儀總司法行政主任（投訴法官行為秘書處）

朱賽金 對 華佩儀總司法行政主任（投訴法官行為秘書處）

The application was dismissed because there were no objective grounds for recusal, the court had no jurisdiction to set aside the earlier final judgment, the applicant failed to justify an extension of time after an approximately 24‑month delay beyond the 14‑day appeal period, and the proposed appeal had no real...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 77
Parties
Applicant: 朱賽金; Suggested Respondent: 華佩儀; Respondent: 總司法行政主任（投訴法官行為秘書處）; Interested Party: 首席區域法院法官
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 2024
Case Number
HCAL1521/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Applications (recusal, Extension of Time to Appeal, Set Aside)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Extension of Time to Appeal, Set Aside of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Frivolous/manifestly Hopeless Appeal, Costs
Source Language
ch
Constitutional and Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Recusal Extension of Time to Appeal Set Aside of Judgment Stay of Execution Frivolous/manifestly Hopeless Appeal +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

朱賽金

Applicant

華佩儀

Suggested Respondent

總司法行政主任（投訴法官行為秘書處）

Respondent

首席區域法院法官

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Applications (recusal, Extension of Time to Appeal, Set Aside)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to set aside the earlier judgment
  3. 3 Whether to grant an extension of time to file an appeal after a 24-month delay

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because there were no objective grounds for recusal, the court had no jurisdiction to set aside the earlier final judgment, the applicant failed to justify an extension of time after an approximately 24‑month delay beyond the 14‑day appeal period, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success; consequently requests for recusal, stay and set‑aside were refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Recusal refused