陳英偉 對 陳英捷及另一人

陳英偉 對 陳英捷及另一人

Permission to appeal refused because the appeal had no real prospect of success and the judge properly exercised case management discretion given the different parties and causes and the risk of delay and costs; the s14AA threshold for granting leave was not met.

Citation
陳英偉 對 陳英捷及另一人
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1628/2012): 陳英偉; First Defendant (hca 1628/2012): 陳英捷; Second Defendant (hca 1628/2012); Plaintiff (hca 2602/2013): 陳鈺麟; Second Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 阮金媚; Third Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 陳寛容; Fourth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 陳明珠; Fifth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 陳瑞英; Sixth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 陳育欣; Seventh Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 謝婉明; Eighth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 陳氏宗親會; Ninth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 香港泉州同鄉會; Tenth Defendant (hca 2602/2013): 石獅市旅港同鄉會
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Case Number
HCA1628/2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal (permission Refused)
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs
Legal Topics
Case Consolidation, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Litigation Capacity, Costs
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Appeals Court Management Case Consolidation Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Litigation Capacity Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

陳英偉

Plaintiff (hca 1628/2012)

陳英捷

First Defendant (hca 1628/2012)

陳鈺麟

Second Defendant (hca 1628/2012); Plaintiff (hca 2602/2013)

阮金媚

Second Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

陳寛容

Third Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

陳明珠

Fourth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

陳瑞英

Fifth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

陳育欣

Sixth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

謝婉明

Seventh Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

陳氏宗親會

Eighth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

香港泉州同鄉會

Ninth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

石獅市旅港同鄉會

Tenth Defendant (hca 2602/2013)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal (permission Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two cases should be consolidated or tried concurrently
  2. 2 Whether the master/judge erred in revoking the consolidation application in the absence of the plaintiff in HCA 1628/2012 and thereby breached procedural fairness/human rights
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal satisfies s.14AA (reasonable prospect of success or other fairness reasons)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal refused because the appeal had no real prospect of success and the judge properly exercised case management discretion given the different parties and causes and the risk of delay and costs; the s14AA threshold for granting leave was not met.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay the costs of HCA 1628/2012 first defendant and HCA 2602/2013 first to third defendants, to be assessed on the summary basis.