SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's filings merely sought to re-open the substantive issues that produced the costs orders and did not demonstrate any error in the judge's exercise of discretion; an appeal would be futile; the court also exercised power under O.59 r.2A(8) to prohibit oral reconsideration.

Citation
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING
Parties
Applicant; Judgment Debtor: Choy Bing Wing; Respondent; Judgment Creditor: Secretary for Justice
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Case Number
HCMP129/2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Charging Order Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; order made under O.59 r.2A(8) that applicant may not request reconsideration at an oral hearing; charging orders made absolute below upheld.
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Leave to Appeal, Execution, Re Opening Merits
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Appeals Costs Charging Orders Leave to Appeal Execution Re Opening Merits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Choy Bing Wing

Applicant; Judgment Debtor

Secretary for Justice

Respondent; Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From Charging Order Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether charging orders nisi should be made absolute
  3. 3 Whether a judgment debtor may re-open the substantive merits on an execution application

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's filings merely sought to re-open the substantive issues that produced the costs orders and did not demonstrate any error in the judge's exercise of discretion; an appeal would be futile; the court also exercised power under O.59 r.2A(8) to prohibit oral reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; order made under O.59 r.2A(8) that applicant may not request reconsideration at an oral hearing; charging orders made absolute below upheld.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused by Court of Appeal
  • Order under O.59 r.2A(8) that the applicant may not request that the determination be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes