PRISCILLA LAU v. CHAN YIN HONG AND ANOTHER

PRISCILLA LAU v. CHAN YIN HONG AND ANOTHER

The trial judge's factual finding that the cut was caused accidentally by the plaintiff's sudden movement and not intentionally established that there was no cause of action; therefore the application for leave to appeal was totally without merit and must be refused; the statutory stay was lifted and costs ordered to the defendants, with an order nisi under Order 59 rule 2A(8) preventing oral rehearing requests.

Citation
PRISCILLA LAU v. CHAN YIN HONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Priscilla Lau; First Defendant: Chan Yin Hong; Second Defendant: Second Defendant (course organiser)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 December 2009
Case Number
HCMP2536/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort/personal Injury (intentional/neglect) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Dcpi; Leave Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; statutory stay lifted; costs ordered to defendants; order nisi under Order 59 rule 2A(8) that no party may request oral reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Intentional Wrongdoing, Negligence, Leave to Appeal, Statutory Stay, Legal Aid, Order 59 Rule 2 A(8)
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Intentional Wrongdoing Leave to Appeal Statutory Stay +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Priscilla Lau

Plaintiff

Chan Yin Hong

First Defendant

Second Defendant (course organiser)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort/personal Injury (intentional/neglect) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Dcpi; Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant deliberately wounded the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether negligence could be made out on the facts
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's factual finding that the cut was caused accidentally by the plaintiff's sudden movement and not intentionally established that there was no cause of action; therefore the application for leave to appeal was totally without merit and must be refused; the statutory stay was lifted and costs ordered to the defendants, with an order nisi under Order 59 rule 2A(8) preventing oral rehearing requests.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; statutory stay lifted; costs ordered to defendants; order nisi under Order 59 rule 2A(8) that no party may request oral reconsideration.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Statutory stay lifted