盧順寧 對 林坤華及另一人

盧順寧 對 林坤華及另一人

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant duplicated arguments previously rejected, produced no new evidence or points giving the appeal a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2), and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice; additionally the absence of persuasive medical evidence on causation justified the dismissal of the application.

Citation
盧順寧 對 林坤華及另一人
Parties
Plaintiff (dcpi 1363/2014; DCPI 811/2013; DCPI 624/2013): 盧順寧; First Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014): 黃發安; Second Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014): 宋玉玲; First Defendant (dcpi 811/2013): 林坤華; Second Defendant (dcpi 811/2013): 劉秀蓮; First Defendant (dcpi 624/2013): 江少儀; Second Defendant (dcpi 624/2013): 陳力為
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
DCPI811/2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Post Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Striking Out, Causation, Costs
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Appeal Personal Injury Evidence Leave to Appeal Striking Out Causation 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

盧順寧

Plaintiff (dcpi 1363/2014; DCPI 811/2013; DCPI 624/2013)

黃發安

First Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014)

宋玉玲

Second Defendant (dcpi 1363/2014)

林坤華

First Defendant (dcpi 811/2013)

劉秀蓮

Second Defendant (dcpi 811/2013)

江少儀

First Defendant (dcpi 624/2013)

陳力為

Second Defendant (dcpi 624/2013)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under District Court Ordinance s63 and s63A(2)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has new evidence or arguable grounds giving the appeal a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient medical evidence to establish causation between the alleged injury and symptoms

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant duplicated arguments previously rejected, produced no new evidence or points giving the appeal a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2), and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice; additionally the absence of persuasive medical evidence on causation justified the dismissal of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Costs to be paid to the defendants, including counsel fees in DCPI 1363/2014; costs to be assessed by the court if not agreed