蔡思明 對 蔡錦裳
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise any question of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, the appellant merely repeated previously rejected arguments, the striking out was case-specific and did not raise issues warranting the Court of Final Appeal's determination, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] HKCA 149
- Parties
- Appellant: 蔡思明 (Choi Si Ming Danny); Respondent: 蔡錦裳 (Choy Kam Sheung)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2018
- Case Number
- CACV210/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Refused
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Striking Out Pleadings, Public Importance, Assessment of Costs
- 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
蔡思明 (Choi Si Ming Danny)
Appellant
蔡錦裳 (Choy Kam Sheung)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- 2 Whether the striking out of parts of the statement of claim raised issues of broad public importance or public interest
- 3 Whether there were other reasons that would justify the Court of Final Appeal hearing the proposed appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise any question of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, the appellant merely repeated previously rejected arguments, the striking out was case-specific and did not raise issues warranting the Court of Final Appeal's determination, and there were no other reasons to grant leave.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of this application, provisionally fixed at HK$20,330
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 210/2016 [2018] HKCA 149 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 民事上訴案件2016年第210號 （原高等法院民事訴訟2015年第896號） 原告人 蔡思明 (Choi Si Ming Danny) 及 被告人 蔡錦裳 (Choy Kam Sheung) 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 高等法院上訴法庭法官關淑馨 陳詞綱要日期： 2018年1月26日、2月6日及14日 判案書日期： 2018年3月16日 判案書 上訴法庭法官關淑馨頒發上訴法庭判案書： 本庭在2017年12月15日頒發判案書，駁回原告人的上訴，維持原訟法庭的判決，剔除他的申索陳述書 (第107(7) 段除外) 。原告人在2018年1月12日存檔提出動議通知書，要求准許向終審法院上訴。 《香港終審法院條例》(第484章) 第22(1)(b) 條訂明，如上訴涉及的問題，具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決，上訴法庭或終審法院須酌情決定，終審法院是否受理該上訴。 原告人的提出動議通知書、陳詞綱要及就答辯人陳詞綱要的書面回應，未有提出任何重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性的問題，只是重申之前提出但被法庭拒絕接納的論點。剔除本案的申索陳述書，是因應本案特定的情形而作出的決定，從任何角度來看，都不可能涉及重大廣泛的或關乎公眾重要性的問題。這判決明顯不涉及任何《基本法》的條文。 再者本庭也不認為原告人重複提出的論點，可具實質爭議。本庭毋需覆述去年頒發判案書的理由。 本庭也不認為有任何其他理由，以致原告人擬提出的上訴，應交由終審法院裁決。 基於上述理由，本庭行使酌情權，拒絕准許原告人向終審法院上訴。 本庭作出以下的暫准訟費命令，及循簡易程序評定合理的訟費。本庭命令原告人支付被告人在這申請的訟費，訟費金額則下調為$20,330。倘若與訟任何一方在判案書頒發14天內，沒有申請更改訟費的命令或金額，暫准訟費命令將成為永久命令。 （張澤祐） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 （袁家寧） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 （關淑馨） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 原告人：無律師代表，親自行事 被告人：由蘇合成律師行代表