藍松 對 藍有文及另四人

藍松 對 藍有文及另四人

The appeal was struck out because the appellant lacked the legal right to pursue the relevant proceedings (litigation rights had vested in the Official Receiver who did not consent), the appellant produced no arguable legal basis for judicial review or appeal, prior related appeals had been refused, and the proposed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCA 104
Parties
Applicant: 藍松; Respondent: 藍有文; Respondent: 藍有強; Respondent: 陳永輝; Respondent: 藍雪芬; Respondent: 曹劍美
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Case Number
CACV270/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Struck Out Appeal for Abuse of Process and Lack of Arguable Grounds
Outcome
appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal, Standing and Vesting of Litigation Rights, Strike Out, Prior Refusals of Leave, Official Receiver Rights
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Law Judicial Review Appellate Procedure Abuse of Process Permission to Appeal Standing and Vesting of Litigation Rights Strike Out +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

藍松

Applicant

藍有文

Respondent

藍有強

Respondent

陳永輝

Respondent

藍雪芬

Respondent

曹劍美

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Struck Out Appeal for Abuse of Process and Lack of Arguable Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant retained litigation rights to pursue judicial review and appeals given vesting in the Official Receiver
  2. 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated any arguable grounds or reasonable prospects of success for the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appeal constituted an abuse of process and therefore should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because the appellant lacked the legal right to pursue the relevant proceedings (litigation rights had vested in the Official Receiver who did not consent), the appellant produced no arguable legal basis for judicial review or appeal, prior related appeals had been refused, and the proposed appeal was an abuse of process with no prospect of success; therefore Pan CJ's order to remove the notice of appeal was correct and must stand.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out

Orders

  • Appeal struck out