鄧劍聯 對 譚慧冰以(大澳海鮮酒家之名營業)

鄧劍聯 對 譚慧冰以(大澳海鮮酒家之名營業)

Out‑of‑time leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the six‑week delay and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the medical evidence was outdated, lacked objective findings linking the symptoms to the accident and disclosed pre‑existing psychiatric...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
鄧劍聯 對 譚慧冰以(大澳海鮮酒家之名營業)
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: 鄧劍聯; Respondent/defendant: 譚慧冰 (以大澳海鮮酒家之名營業)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Case Number
HCMP500/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused; permission to appeal costs order refused; re‑application at an oral hearing barred under the rules; no costs awarded on this application.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Medical Evidence, Case Management
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Evidence Appeal Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Medical Evidence Case Management

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

鄧劍聯

Applicant/plaintiff

譚慧冰 (以大澳海鮮酒家之名營業)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether out‑of‑time leave to appeal should be granted given unexplained delay
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient objective and recent medical evidence to support the claimed injuries and causation
  3. 3 Whether the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success or other compelling reason to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

Out‑of‑time leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the six‑week delay and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the medical evidence was outdated, lacked objective findings linking the symptoms to the accident and disclosed pre‑existing psychiatric illness, so the lower courts were correct to dismiss the claim and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused; permission to appeal costs order refused; re‑application at an oral hearing barred under the rules; no costs awarded on this application.

Orders

  • Refuse application for leave to appeal out of time
  • Refuse permission to appeal the costs order