王 對 陳

王 對 陳

The Court held that the respondent's applications were procedurally improper and substantively without merit: the Court of Appeal's prior order under Order 59(2A)(8) precluded any oral rehearing; the respondent failed to seek leave from the judge as required and did not demonstrate any special or urgent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCA 1298
Parties
Petitioner: 王; Respondent: 陳
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Case Number
CAMP212/2022
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal and Related Procedural Applications (court of Appeal) / Determination on Interlocutory Applications; Consolidated Handling; Dismissal of Applications
Outcome
All of the respondent's oral-hearing applications, leave-to-appeal applications and costs-appeal applications filed in CAMP 212/2022, CAMP 213/2022, CAMP 222/2022 and CAMP 223/2022 were revoked/dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner to be summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Oral Hearing Request, Costs, Procedural Orders, Direct Application for Leave
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeal Family Law Leave to Appeal Oral Hearing Request Costs Procedural Orders Direct Application for Leave

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

王

Petitioner

陳

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal and Related Procedural Applications (court of Appeal) / Determination on Interlocutory Applications; Consolidated Handling; Dismissal of Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 59(2A)(8) precludes the respondent from requesting an oral hearing to reconsider the Court of Appeal's prior written decision
  2. 2 Whether the respondent could apply directly to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the district court judge's costs/order without first applying to the judge as required by the rules
  3. 3 Whether identical applications filed in multiple unrelated CAMP matters are permissible or should be struck out as improperly filed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondent's applications were procedurally improper and substantively without merit: the Court of Appeal's prior order under Order 59(2A)(8) precluded any oral rehearing; the respondent failed to seek leave from the judge as required and did not demonstrate any special or urgent circumstances to justify a direct application to the Court of Appeal; identical applications filed across unrelated CAMP files were improper; accordingly all such applications were revoked and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

All of the respondent's oral-hearing applications, leave-to-appeal applications and costs-appeal applications filed in CAMP 212/2022, CAMP 213/2022, CAMP 222/2022 and CAMP 223/2022 were revoked/dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner to be summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Revoked the respondent's leave-to-appeal writs filed on 21 March 2023 in CAMP 212, 213, 222 and 223/2022.
  • Revoked the respondent's costs-appeal writs filed on 21 March 2023 in CAMP 212, 213, 222 and 223/2022.