劉彩琼 對 GOOD EXCEL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LTD

劉彩琼 對 GOOD EXCEL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LTD

The application for extension was refused because the appellant filed the leave application some 4.5 months late without any explanation (a serious unexplained delay) and because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and did not raise any issue of broad public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 862
Parties
Appellant: LIU CAIQIONG; Respondent: GOOD EXCEL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LIMITED
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 2024
Case Number
CACV422/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (out‑of‑time Leave Application)
Outcome
Application for extension of time and for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed and leave out of time denied.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal to C.f.a., Admission of Fresh Evidence, Security for Costs, Appellate Standard of Review
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeal Personal Injury Costs Security Extension of Time Leave to Appeal to C.f.a. Admission of Fresh Evidence Security for Costs +1 more

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

Parties

LIU CAIQIONG

Appellant

GOOD EXCEL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (out‑of‑time Leave Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether to extend time to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  2. 2 whether the proposed appeal raises matters of broad public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484)
  3. 3 whether the appellant's fresh evidence filed after judgment should be admitted under Order 59 rule 10(2) of the High Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension was refused because the appellant filed the leave application some 4.5 months late without any explanation (a serious unexplained delay) and because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and did not raise any issue of broad public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; the new medical evidence was not shown to satisfy Order 59 rule 10(2) and the proposed appeal was a re‑run of factual complaints which appellate courts will not disturb absent legal error; accordingly leave out of time was denied and the motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; motion dismissed and leave out of time denied.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time for leave to appeal denied and motion dismissed
  • New evidence filed in 2024 refused admission (did not meet Order 59 rule 10(2) requirements)