莊裕安 對 馬奕香及另一人

莊裕安 對 馬奕香及另一人

The Court refused the applicant's leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the issues advanced were not of sufficient general or public importance under s22(1)(b), the applications merely repeated previously rejected arguments, the prior refusal was final under s14AB, and accordingly the leave...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
莊裕安 對 馬奕香及另一人
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: 莊裕安; Respondent/defendant: 馬奕香; Respondent/defendant: 莊詠蘭
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 March 2016
Case Number
CACV46/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave Application to Court of Final Appeal; Civil Appeal in Court of Appeal (hcmp/cacv) / Post Judgment Leave Application; Refusal of Leave and Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; prior appeal revoked/dismissed; subpoena of 11 January 2016 revoked.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Finality Under High Court Ordinance S14 AB, Public Importance Requirement Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S22(1)(b), Costs Order
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Leave to Appeal Finality Under High Court Ordinance S14 AB Public Importance Requirement Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S22(1)(b) Costs Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

莊裕安

Applicant/plaintiff

馬奕香

Respondent/defendant

莊詠蘭

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave Application to Court of Final Appeal; Civil Appeal in Court of Appeal (hcmp/cacv) / Post Judgment Leave Application; Refusal of Leave and Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised are of sufficient general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's repeated filings re‑argue matters already decided and are therefore misconceived

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the applicant's leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the issues advanced were not of sufficient general or public importance under s22(1)(b), the applications merely repeated previously rejected arguments, the prior refusal was final under s14AB, and accordingly the leave application was dismissed and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; prior appeal revoked/dismissed; subpoena of 11 January 2016 revoked.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • The 11 January 2016 subpoena dismissed/revoked