楊鑒新 對 社會福利署長

楊鑒新 對 社會福利署長

The statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and amounted to a collateral attack on prior determinations of the Guardianship Board and the High Court, constituting abuse of process; the appellant's appeal was out of time and no special reasons or permission justified it; the attempted introduction of new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was refused and dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent on an indemnity basis with summary assessment directions.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 1463
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: 楊鑒新 (Yang Gim Sun); Defendant/respondent: 社會福利署長 (Director of Social Welfare)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
DCCJ6785/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil — Strike Out / Appeal Against Registrar's Decision / Hearing on Appeal Against Registrar's Strike Out Order (application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Reconsidered)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission for the out‑of‑time appeal refused; underlying strike‑out upheld as abusive and not disclosing a reasonable cause of action; costs awarded to respondent on indemnity basis with summary assessment directions.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Disclosure of Reasonable Cause of Action, Abuse of Process, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal (ladd V Marshall), Time Barred Appeal and Permission for Extension, Indemnity Costs and Summary Assessment
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Mental Health Law Guardianship Costs Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Application Disclosure of Reasonable Cause of Action Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal (ladd V Marshall) +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

楊鑒新 (Yang Gim Sun)

Plaintiff/appellant

社會福利署長 (Director of Social Welfare)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil — Strike Out / Appeal Against Registrar's Decision / Hearing on Appeal Against Registrar's Strike Out Order (application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Reconsidered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the District Court is a proper forum to challenge Guardianship Board and High Court decisions (collateral attack)
  3. 3 Whether the appeal was brought out of time and whether permission for a late appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and amounted to a collateral attack on prior determinations of the Guardianship Board and the High Court, constituting abuse of process; the appellant's appeal was out of time and no special reasons or permission justified it; the attempted introduction of new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall requirements; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was refused and dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent on an indemnity basis with summary assessment directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission for the out‑of‑time appeal refused; underlying strike‑out upheld as abusive and not disclosing a reasonable cause of action; costs awarded to respondent on indemnity basis with summary assessment directions.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal is dismissed and permission for the out‑of‑time appeal is refused.
  • The appellant must pay the respondent's costs of the appeal immediately.