鄧偉良 v. 張本楠 AND ANOTHER

鄧偉良 v. 張本楠 AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable question of law: the Deputy Adjudicator made permissible factual findings on credibility and reliance (including that the claimant did not rely on any FEHD report), applied the correct legal test for deceit requiring cogent evidence, and did not misapply law or show bias; costs were properly left as no order.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 762
Parties
Claimant: 鄧偉良; 1st Defendant: 張本楠; 2nd Defendant: 楊若薇
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Case Number
HCSA41/2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (dismissed)
Outcome
Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Leave to Appeal, Standard of Review, Findings of Fact Vs Law, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Civil Procedure Small Claims Tribunal Deceit Leave to Appeal Standard of Review Findings of Fact Vs Law 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

鄧偉良

Claimant

張本楠

1st Defendant

楊若薇

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of First Instance (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants raised a reasonably arguable question of law for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Adjudicator misunderstood or misapplied the law on deceit
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Adjudicator erred in factual findings regarding reliance on the FEHD report

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable question of law: the Deputy Adjudicator made permissible factual findings on credibility and reliance (including that the claimant did not rely on any FEHD report), applied the correct legal test for deceit requiring cogent evidence, and did not misapply law or show bias; costs were properly left as no order.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs