李靜 對 趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所

李靜 對 趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所

Appellant failed to obtain the statutory permission required under Cap 336 s63 (and did not validly explain why permission was unnecessary); her grounds were confined to individual grievances and did not raise matters of general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); therefore leave to appeal to the Court of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCA 507
Parties
Appellant: Li Jing Jenny; Respondent: Chiu, Szeto & Cheng Solicitors
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Case Number
CACV451/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Filed at Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Considered and Refused; Appeal Struck for Want of Permission
Outcome
Application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal refused; earlier appeal struck for want of permission remains struck/out of time.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Procedural Compliance, Jurisdiction, Statutory Time Limits
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Procedural Compliance Jurisdiction Statutory Time Limits

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Jing Jenny

Appellant

Chiu, Szeto & Cheng Solicitors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Filed at Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Considered and Refused; Appeal Struck for Want of Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was required to obtain permission under Regional Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s63 before appealing to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's proposals raised matters of 'general or public importance' to satisfy Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) s22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appellant complied with procedural rules and time limits for seeking permission and filing the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to obtain the statutory permission required under Cap 336 s63 (and did not validly explain why permission was unnecessary); her grounds were confined to individual grievances and did not raise matters of general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused and the motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal refused; earlier appeal struck for want of permission remains struck/out of time.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • Notice of motion dismissed and the appellant's appeal remains struck for want of required permission