黃碩雄 對 袁煒林及另一人
The court refused permission because the applicant's grounds and written submissions did not satisfy the statutory threshold under s22(1) — the appeal did not raise issues of sufficient general or public importance to merit determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] HKCA 43
- Parties
- Appellant: 黃碩雄; First Respondent: 袁煒林; Second Respondent: 永興租賃汽車有限公司
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 26 January 2018
- Case Number
- CACV171/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (s22(1) Application)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused and the notice of motion struck out.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Public Importance, Permission to Appeal
- 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
黃碩雄
Appellant
袁煒林
First Respondent
永興租賃汽車有限公司
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (s22(1) Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal raises an issue of general or public importance such that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s22(1)
- 2 Whether the applicant's written grounds met the statutory threshold for permission to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused permission because the applicant's grounds and written submissions did not satisfy the statutory threshold under s22(1) — the appeal did not raise issues of sufficient general or public importance to merit determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused and the notice of motion struck out.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- The applicant's notice of motion (application for leave) is revoked/struck out
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 171/2016 [2018] HKCA 43 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171號 (原高等法院雜項案件2012年第2848號) __________________ 原告人 黃碩雄 及 第一被告人 袁煒林 第二被告人 永興租賃汽車有限公司 __________________ 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關淑馨 高等法院上訴法庭法官潘兆初 書面陳詞日期:2017年12月21日 判案書日期:2018年1月26日 判 案 書 上訴法庭法官潘兆初頒發上訴法庭判案書: 2017年12月1日,本庭頒下判案書,駁回原告人針對原訟法庭法官鍾安德2016年7月20日的命令。原告人在2017年12月8日向法庭存檔動議通知書,向本庭申請許可,讓他上訴至終審法院。 根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)條的規定,上訴涉及的問題必須具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性,或因其他理由,上訴以致應交由終審法院裁決,上訴人才可獲許可向終審法院提出上訴。原告人依賴的上訴理據及在書面陳詞提出的種種說法,根本不能滿足獲給予上訴許可的門檻。因此,本庭拒絕給予上訴許可,並撤銷其動議通知書。 (張澤祐) (關淑馨) (潘兆初) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 原告人:無律師代表。 第一被告人:無律師代表。 第二被告人:無律師代表。