JIN YU CHIA 對 THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE AH HSIN, DECEASED
The Court refused leave because the appellant failed to show that the issues she sought to raise were of general or public importance or otherwise appropriate for determination by the Court of Final Appeal; her submissions constituted disputes of the facts of the case rather than points of wider legal significance.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 447
- Parties
- Appellant: JIN YU CHIA; Respondent: THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE AH HSIN, DECEASED (acting by LI XUEMIN)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2019
- Case Number
- CACV111/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Leave to Appeal, Public Interest, Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S22(1)(b)
- 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
JIN YU CHIA
Appellant
THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE AH HSIN, DECEASED (acting by LI XUEMIN)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter raises issues of general or public importance meriting leave to appeal under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- 2 Whether contact between an adverse possessor and heirs, heirs' renunciation of inheritance, or an unexecuted gift by the deceased affects the validity or credibility of an adverse possession claim
- 3 Whether factual disputes alone can constitute grounds of public importance for leave to appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused leave because the appellant failed to show that the issues she sought to raise were of general or public importance or otherwise appropriate for determination by the Court of Final Appeal; her submissions constituted disputes of the facts of the case rather than points of wider legal significance.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Orders
- Application for leave refused
- Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of this application; respondent's costs to be assessed under the Legal Aid Rules
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 111/2017 [2019] hkca 447 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 民事上訴案件 2017 年第111 號 (原高等法院民事訴訟案件2011年第1121號) 原告人 JIN YU CHIA 與 被告人 THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE AH HSIN, DECEASED (acting by LI XUEMIN (李學敏) pursuant to the Order made by Master R. Lai on 10 October 2012) 審理法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡 原告人書面陳詞日期：2019年2月22日及2019年3月12日 被告人書面陳詞日期：2019年3月7日 判決書日期：2019年 4 月11日 判決書 上訴法庭張澤祐法官頒發上訴法庭判決書： 上訴許可申請 1 本庭在2018年12月6日駁回原告人針對原訟法庭法官陳嘉信2017年4月24日判決的上訴及在2018年12月13 日頒發判案理由書。 原告人向本庭申請上訴許可，讓她向終審法院提出進一步的上訴。本庭現以書面形式處理申請。 II. 本庭意見 1 本案的事實背景和爭議點，以及本庭對案件的分析已於判案理由書詳述。本庭不在此多贅。 根據《香港終審法院條例》第484章第22(1)(b) 條(「該條例」)，原告人必須指明其所擬上訴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，才可獲得上訴許可。 原告人提出以下她認為本案具有「重大公眾利益」的上訴理據： 「在逆權侵佔的法律下，以下行為或情況並不影響侵佔人的侵佔行為或侵佔成效: (1) 侵佔人在侵佔期間接觸及聯繫已故業權人的後人; (2) 已故業權人的後人同意放棄繼承業權人的遺產; 及 (3) 已故業權人生前曾表示將物業餽贈侵佔人，但來不及簽立遺囑。 原訟庭及上訴庭錯誤將上述行為或情況引申為原告人 (侵佔人) 的侵佔行為不能成立或削弱侵佔人的可信性，這觀點存在著重大公眾利益。」 原告人的書面陳述書只是重複她認為應該獲得勝訴的觀點。本庭認為原告人稱本案具有重大廣泛公眾利益的理據只是關於本案個別事實背景的爭議，原告人未能指出案件涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性或有其他理由把案件給予終審法院裁判。 III． 裁決 基於以上原因，本庭拒絕申請及命令原告人支付被告人本申請訟費。被告人本身的訟費按《法律援助規則》評定。 （張澤祐） 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 （袁家寧） 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 （朱芬齡） 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 原告人：無律師代表，親自行事。 被告人：由江得源律師行轉聘鄧漢標大律師代表。