覃錫鴻 對 金英子經營新世界食品公司
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not involve any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b), had no real prospect of success, and the applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 (no written submissions), so the application must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCA 962
- Parties
- Applicant: CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN; Respondent: KIM YOUNG JA TRADING AS NEW WORLD TRADING COMPANY
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2023
- Case Number
- CACV478/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal to the Court of Appeal Arising From Labour Tribunal Matter / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) CFA Ordinance; Leave Refused by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal to Final Court, Labour Tribunal Appeal, Practice Directions Compliance, Public Importance Test
- 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
CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN
Applicant
KIM YOUNG JA TRADING AS NEW WORLD TRADING COMPANY
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to the Court of Appeal Arising From Labour Tribunal Matter / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S22(1)(b) CFA Ordinance; Leave Refused by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises issues of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- 2 Whether there is any real prospect of success on the proposed appeal
- 3 Whether the applicant complied with Practice Direction 2.1 requiring written submissions
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not involve any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b), had no real prospect of success, and the applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 (no written submissions), so the application must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 478/2022, [2023] HKCA 962 On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 655 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事上訴 民事上訴案件2022年第478號 (原勞資審裁處上訴2022年第12號) ____________ 申索人 覃錫鴻 (CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN) 及 被告人 金英子經營新世界食品公司 (KIM YOUNG JA TRADING AS NEW WORLD TRADING COMPANY) ____________ 主審法官 ： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡 高等法院上訴法庭法官林雲浩 判決書日期 ： 2023年8月22日 判決書 由上訴法庭法官林雲浩頒發上訴法庭判決書： 本庭於本年5月23日裁定申索人所擬提出的上訴無效，頒令剔除其上訴通知書（見本庭判決書[2023] HKCA 655）。 申索人其後以提出動議通知書向本庭申請許可，就本庭上述判決向終審法院提出上訴。申索人在該通知書中稱： 「 被告以韓國沒有膠袋徵費和本人不肯承擔不是本人犯的商品說明條例而解僱本人是不合法不合理，本人根據僱傭條例32P補償的判給：(3)申索的情況包括 (d)僱員所蒙受的可歸因於遭解僱的任何損失。」 申索人並沒有依照《實務指示2.1》第3段所載的指示指交書面陳詞。根據該實務指示，現本庭按存檔文件對申索人的申請以書面方式作出裁決。 香港法例第484章《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條規定： 「 如該上訴是就上訴法庭就任何民事訟案或事項所作的判決而提出的，不論是最終判決或非正審判決，而上訴法庭或終審法院（視屬何情況而定）認為上訴所涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決，則上訴法庭或終審法院須酌情決定終審法院是否受理該上訴。」 申索人所擬提出的上訴明顯並不涉及任何具重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性的問題。申索人也未能提出任何理據說明他所擬提出的上訴有任何機會得直。正如本庭在本年5月23日的判決書中指出，根據法律，原訟法庭就勞資審裁處的裁斷拒絕批予上訴許可後，申索人不可就原訟法庭這決定提出上訴。申索人沒有就此提出任何原因使他的上訴通知書不應被剔除。 因此，本庭拒絕給予上訴許可，不作訟費命令。 （朱芬齡） （林雲浩） 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申索人： 無律師代表