梁淑微 對 香港房屋委員會 (房屋署)

梁淑微 對 香港房屋委員會 (房屋署)

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the proposed grounds do not raise issues of broad public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, they merely repeat arguments already considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal, the allegations of impersonation and absence of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 1005
Parties
Applicant: 梁淑微; Respondent: 香港房屋委員會 (房屋署)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
CACV284/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (permission Refused by Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion withdrawn/revoked; applicant ordered to pay costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Court Seals and Signatures, Identity of Presiding Judge, Costs Assessment
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Leave to Appeal Admission of Fresh Evidence Court Seals and Signatures Identity of Presiding Judge Costs Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

梁淑微

Applicant

香港房屋委員會 (房屋署)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (permission Refused by Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises questions of broad public importance under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance s22(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's fresh evidence satisfies High Court Rules Order 59 r10
  3. 3 Whether there is any factual basis for the allegation that the presiding judge was impersonated

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the proposed grounds do not raise issues of broad public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, they merely repeat arguments already considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal, the allegations of impersonation and absence of seal/signature lack factual basis, and the fresh evidence does not meet the established criteria; cited authorities support the Court of Appeal's interpretation of s51 and the sealing/filing of the order.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion withdrawn/revoked; applicant ordered to pay costs to respondent

Orders

  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • The applicant's Notice of Motion is revoked