何漢標 對 李妙桂

何漢標 對 李妙桂

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised any question of general or public importance or any other reason warranting determination by the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b); the relevant proceedings and remedies had been exhausted and the alleged fraud/collusion and bias were unsupported by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCA 1044
Parties
Appellant/applicant: 何漢標; Respondent: 李妙桂 (Representing the Estate of 何漢嘉 pursuant to Order of Master M. Wong dated 10 May 2017)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Case Number
CACV340/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; application to suspend the court's order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal to CFA, Statutory Demand, Finality of Litigation, Allegations of Fraud and Bias, Oral Vs Written Hearing, Compliance With Bankruptcy Rules
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Bankruptcy Costs Permission to Appeal to CFA Statutory Demand Finality of Litigation Allegations of Fraud and Bias +2 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 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

何漢標

Appellant/applicant

李妙桂 (Representing the Estate of 何漢嘉 pursuant to Order of Master M. Wong dated 10 May 2017)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application satisfies s22(1)(b) CFA Ordinance for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised are of general or public importance or otherwise warrant CFA determination
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has exhausted remedies and the litigation is final

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised any question of general or public importance or any other reason warranting determination by the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b); the relevant proceedings and remedies had been exhausted and the alleged fraud/collusion and bias were unsupported by facts; the statutory demand complied with Bankruptcy Rules r44; no special circumstances justified an oral hearing; accordingly permission to appeal and the application to suspend the court's order were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; application to suspend the court's order dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
  • Application to suspend (stay) the Court of Appeal's order dismissed.