張惠蘭 對 中國海外物業服務有限公司
The late appeal was refused because no application for leave was made and no acceptable explanation for delay was provided; moreover the appeal had no real prospect of success because the Registrar's costs order was reasonable given the applicant's deliberate non-attendance, therefore the appeal is dismissed and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] HKDC 251
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cheung Wai Lan (張惠蘭); Defendant: China Overseas Property Services Limited (中國海外物業服務有限公司)
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2025
- Case Number
- DCPI988/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury (work Injury) / Appeal Against Costs Order and Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Restoration of Claim
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal out of time refused; costs awarded against applicant.
- Legal Topics
- Restoration of Proceedings, Costs Orders, Extension of Time for Appeal, Case Management
- 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
Cheung Wai Lan (張惠蘭)
Plaintiff
China Overseas Property Services Limited (中國海外物業服務有限公司)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (work Injury) / Appeal Against Costs Order and Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Restoration of Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to permit an out-of-time appeal against a costs order
- 2 Whether the Registrar's costs order should be set aside as unreasonable or legally wrong
- 3 Whether the applicant's failure to attend the case management hearing justified a costs order
Ratio Decidendi
The late appeal was refused because no application for leave was made and no acceptable explanation for delay was provided; moreover the appeal had no real prospect of success because the Registrar's costs order was reasonable given the applicant's deliberate non-attendance, therefore the appeal is dismissed and costs ordered against the applicant.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal out of time refused; costs awarded against applicant.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of this application, summarily assessed at HK$10,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DCPI 988/2021 [2025] HKDC 251 香港特別行政區 區域法院 傷亡訴訟2021年988號 ---------------------------- 原告人 CHEUNG WAI LAN（張惠蘭） 及 被告人 CHINA OVERSEAS PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED（中國海外物業服務有限公司） ---------------------------- 主審法官：區域法院暫委法官蕭子謙內庭聆訊（公開） 聆訊日期：2025年2月11日 判決書日期：2025年2月14日 ---------------------------- 判決書 ---------------------------- 原告人因為缺席2023年8月28日舉行的案件管理會議聆訊，林子勤聆案官根據《區域法院規則》第25號命令第4條規則暫時剔除其申請。 原告人在2023年11月24日申請恢復其申索。李慧雲聆案官於2024年8月14 日批准原告人的恢復申請，並作出了相應的案件管理指示，同時命令原告人須於35天內向被告人支付其申請的訟費，經簡易評定為港幣$29,395。 原告人於2024年9月25日就李慧雲聆案官的訟費命令提出上訴。根據其上訴通知書以及她在聆訊時作出的陳詞，她指由於她是工傷案件的受害人，而且在李聆案官席前舉行的聆訊並非正審，因此她不應被命令支付訟費。 正如被告人的代表律師指出，原告人須在聆案官作出命令後的14天內提出上訴，否則她須得到法庭的批准以作出逾期上訴，但原告人並沒有申請有關批准。無論如何，本席經考慮下述事項後，不會批准原告人提出逾期上訴。 雖然原告人的延誤只是一個月左右，但她並沒有存檔誓章解釋其延誤的原因。她在庭上指因為她在李聆案官的聆訊後未有即時收到有關命令，因此未有及時提出上訴。本席不接納這個解釋，因為李聆案官在聆訊中已經作出了有關命令，原告人並非指她不知道命令的內容，她無需等到收到該命令的文本後才提出上訴。 原告人就訟費擬提出的上訴，沒有任何成功的機會。根據既定的法律原則，除非聆案官的訟費命令不合理或在法律上出錯，否則法官不會推翻有關命令：參閱Paul Y-ITC Construction Ltd v Kin Shing Co Ltd [1999] 1 HKC 511 第10段。 原告人在明知案件管理會議聆訊日期的情況下依然缺席聆訊，李聆案官在批准她的恢復申請時命令她支付訟費，完全合乎一般做法，無可挑剔：參閱Kharma Greater China Ltd v Kharma International BV HCA 545/2013（未經彙報，2017年3月17日）第28至30段。基於這個原因，即使本席批准原告人逾期提出上訴，其上訴也不會成功。 總結上述原因，本席駁回原告人的上訴。在聆訊時雙方已就訟費作出陳詞。由於原告人敗訴，本席命令原告人向被告人支付本申請的訟費，經簡易評定為港幣$10,000。 （ 蕭子謙 ） 區域法院暫委法官 原告人：無律師代表，並親自應訊 被告人：由梁鳳慈律師行的陳彥萱律師代表