YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN

YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process because prior dismissals of leave to appeal and the specific Order 59 r2A(8) prohibition on requesting an oral hearing precluded the relief sought; the court therefore lawfully made a provisional restricted application order under its inherent jurisdiction requiring leave of a designated judge for further applications in HCMP 1178/2009.

Citation
YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN
Parties
Applicant: Plaintiff; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 October 2009
Case Number
HCMP1178/2009
Procedural Posture
HCMP 1178/2009 / Application to Set Aside Judgment and Orders; Preliminary Procedural Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Restricted Application Order, Leave to Appeal, Oral Hearing Under Order 59, Rule 2 A(8) and Rule 2 C, Prohibition on Further Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Inherent Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Restricted Application Order Leave to Appeal Oral Hearing Under Order 59 Rule 2 A(8) and Rule 2 C +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

HCMP 1178/2009 / Application to Set Aside Judgment and Orders; Preliminary Procedural Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgments and orders of 4 September 2009 and 14 September 2009 should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an oral hearing under Order 59 r2C despite previous orders under r2A(8)
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process justifying a restricted application order under the court's inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process because prior dismissals of leave to appeal and the specific Order 59 r2A(8) prohibition on requesting an oral hearing precluded the relief sought; the court therefore lawfully made a provisional restricted application order under its inherent jurisdiction requiring leave of a designated judge for further applications in HCMP 1178/2009.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as abuse of process

Orders

  • Summons dated 22 September 2009 dismissed
  • Provisional order prohibiting the plaintiff from making any further application in HCMP 1178/2009 except with leave of Tang VP or another judge designated by the Chief Judge, High Court