王艷 對 陳穎懷及另一人
The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason under s14AA(4); accordingly leave was not granted and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 1040
- Parties
- Plaintiff: 王艷; First Defendant: 陳穎懷; Second Defendant: 醫院管理局
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2025
- Case Number
- HCPI291/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (refused)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Costs, High Court Ordinance S14 AA
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
王艷
Plaintiff
陳穎懷
First Defendant
醫院管理局
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant extension of time for filing a notice of appeal/leave under High Court Rules r59(2B)
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success as required by High Court Ordinance s14AA(4) or other reasons of fairness to justify hearing the appeal
- 3 Allocation of costs following refusal of leave
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason under s14AA(4); accordingly leave was not granted and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal out of time refused.
- Costs awarded to the first and second defendants; if parties cannot agree on the amount, costs to be taxed by the costs master.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCPI 291/2021 [2025] HKCFI 1040 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 民事司法管轄權 傷亡訴訟2021年第291號 _________________ 原告人 王艷 對 第一被告人 陳穎懷 第二被告人 醫院管理局 _________________ 主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官潘兆童內庭聆訊(公開) 聆訊日期：2023年12月13日 判決書日期：2025年3月14日 判 決 書 引言 本席於2023年8月22日頒下判決書（「判決書」），撤銷原告人就葛倩兒聆案官的判決提出的上訴。葛聆案官在該判決中拒絕了原告人更換聆案官的傳票申請，並下令原告人支付訟費。 本案之背景可參考判決書，在此不贅。 原告人於2023年11月16日就本席的判決申請逾期上訴許可。 根據《高等法院規則》第59條命令第2B條規則，如要提出上訴，原告人需在判決或命令日期起計14天內提出有關申請，即2023年9月5日或之前提出上訴。 根據《高等法院條例》第14AA條： 「(1) 除法院規則另有規定外，任何人不得針對原訟法庭在任何民事訟案或事宜中作出的非正審判決或命令向上訴法庭提出上訴，但如原訟法庭或上訴法庭已批予上訴許可，則屬例外。 … (4) 聆訊有關上訴許可申請的法庭除非信納— (a) 有關上訴有合理機會得直；或 (b) 有其他有利於秉行公正的理由，因而該上訴應進行聆訊， 否則不得批予第(1)款所指的上訴許可。」 原告人在她就上訴許可申請存檔的支持誓章中沒有解釋她逾期申請的原因。在聆訊時和在她的補充書面陳詞中也沒有提供合理解釋。 原告人在誓章和陳詞中只是重複她在上訴聆訊時的論點，沒有提出任何有勝算的上訴理據。 因此，本席拒絕給予原告人上訴許可。 由於原告人申請失敗，本申請的訟費歸兩名被告人，若雙方未能就數額達成協議，交由訟費聆案官評核。 ( 潘兆童 ) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 原告人：無律師代表，親自應訊。 第一及第二被告人：由孖士打律師行李苡婷律師代表。