梁翰偉及另一人 對 馮北泰（已身故）及其他人

梁翰偉及另一人 對 馮北泰（已身故）及其他人

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to show any error in the Master's taxation or in the judge's refusal to review and thus failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other reason to permit an appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and a bar on re‑application under HCR Order 59(2A)(8) was imposed.

Citation
梁翰偉及另一人 對 馮北泰（已身故）及其他人
Parties
First Plaintiff: 梁翰偉; Second Plaintiff: 梁偉鴻; Sixth Defendant: 馮北泰 (已身故); Seventh Defendants (managers of 大社壇, Replaced 姚啓亨): 翁志明; 張明輝; 李永生; 李桂珍; 葉少康; 羅鎮良; 何炳釗; 鄺國威; 孔憲禮
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Case Number
HCMP2163/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; re‑application barred under High Court Rules Order 59(2A)(8).
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Leave to Appeal, Review of Taxation, Procedural Bar
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Costs Assessment Leave to Appeal Review of Taxation Procedural Bar

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

梁翰偉

First Plaintiff

梁偉鴻

Second Plaintiff

馮北泰 (已身故)

Sixth Defendant

翁志明; 張明輝; 李永生; 李桂珍; 葉少康; 羅鎮良; 何炳釗; 鄺國威; 孔憲禮

Seventh Defendants (managers of 大社壇, Replaced 姚啓亨)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the District Court Master's taxation of costs was erroneous
  3. 3 Whether the District Court judge erred in refusing review and ordering payment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to show any error in the Master's taxation or in the judge's refusal to review and thus failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other reason to permit an appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and a bar on re‑application under HCR Order 59(2A)(8) was imposed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; re‑application barred under High Court Rules Order 59(2A)(8).

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Order that the first plaintiff shall not apply under Order 59(2A)(7) for re‑consideration at a hearing attended by both parties (pursuant to Order 59(2A)(8) of the High Court Rules)