楊其穎 對 胡馬文

楊其穎 對 胡馬文

The appellant failed to comply with clear directions and a subsequent 'unless' order to apply for permission to appeal or file written submissions; because the order below was a non‑final decision requiring leave under High Court Ordinance s14A(1), and the appellant did not obtain leave or comply despite extensions,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCA 437
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Yang Kerwin Catherine; Defendant (appellant): Woo Ma Man
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2020
Case Number
CACV10/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Compliance With Directions and 'unless' Order; Appeal Struck Out
Outcome
Notice of appeal filed 7 January 2020 struck out and appeal dismissed for failure to comply with directions and unless order
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal, Leave to Appeal Under High Court Ordinance S14 A(1), Failure to Comply With Unless Order, Striking Out Appeals, Extension of Time
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Court Jurisdiction Permission to Appeal Leave to Appeal Under High Court Ordinance S14 A(1) Failure to Comply With Unless Order Striking Out Appeals Extension of Time

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

Parties

Yang Kerwin Catherine

Plaintiff (respondent)

Woo Ma Man

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Compliance With Directions and 'unless' Order; Appeal Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave was required under High Court Ordinance s14A(1) to appeal the non-final decision
  2. 2 Whether the appellant complied with directions to apply for permission to appeal or to file written submissions
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with the court's 'unless' order justified striking out the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to comply with clear directions and a subsequent 'unless' order to apply for permission to appeal or file written submissions; because the order below was a non‑final decision requiring leave under High Court Ordinance s14A(1), and the appellant did not obtain leave or comply despite extensions, the properly made 'unless' order justified striking out the notice of appeal and dismissing the appeal.

Court Disposition

Notice of appeal filed 7 January 2020 struck out and appeal dismissed for failure to comply with directions and unless order

Orders

  • Strike out the notice of appeal filed 7 January 2020 and dismiss the appeal
  • No order as to costs