羅健信 對 香港特區政府

羅健信 對 香港特區政府

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised a matter of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) or any other reason warranting the Court of Final Appeal's intervention; the alleged failure to apply s16(1) was not shown to conflict with the legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 216
Parties
Plaintiff: 羅健信; Defendant: 香港特區政府
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2024
Case Number
CAMP142/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Decision on Permission
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S22(1)(b), Judicial Immunity (basic Law Art.85), Res Judicata/duplicate Proceedings, Priority of Equity Over Common Law (high Court Ordinance S16(1)
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Appeal Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S22(1)(b) Judicial Immunity (basic Law Art.85) Res Judicata/duplicate Proceedings Priority of Equity Over Common Law (high Court Ordinance S16(1)

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

羅健信

Plaintiff

香港特區政府

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Decision on Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply s16(1) High Court Ordinance giving priority to equity
  3. 3 Whether the issue raised is of general or public importance

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised a matter of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) or any other reason warranting the Court of Final Appeal's intervention; the alleged failure to apply s16(1) was not shown to conflict with the legal bases (Basic Law Art.85 and the rule against duplicate actions) on which the lower court dismissed the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • No order as to costs.