IAN MICHAEL BROUGHTON v. JAMES TERENCE FFITZROY

IAN MICHAEL BROUGHTON v. JAMES TERENCE FFITZROY

The adjudicator's refusal to provide a written transcript was a proper exercise of her broad discretion and did not raise any arguable point of law for grant of leave to appeal under section 28; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed, but the defendant may seek a digital audio copy of the hearing.

Citation
IAN MICHAEL BROUGHTON v. JAMES TERENCE FFITZROY
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Ian Michael Broughton; Defendant (applicant): James Terence Ffitzroy
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Case Number
HCSA56/2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 28
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transcript of Hearing, Discretion to Provide Transcript, Leave to Appeal, Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Strike Out Application
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tribunal Procedure Administrative Law Access to Court Records Transcript of Hearing Discretion to Provide Transcript Leave to Appeal Review of Adjudicator's Decision +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Michael Broughton

Claimant (respondent)

James Terence Ffitzroy

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 28

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in refusing to provide the transcript of the review hearing
  2. 2 Whether the refusal raised an arguable point of law sufficient to grant leave to appeal under s28 Cap 338
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's medical condition justified ordering a transcript

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's refusal to provide a written transcript was a proper exercise of her broad discretion and did not raise any arguable point of law for grant of leave to appeal under section 28; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed, but the defendant may seek a digital audio copy of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs