SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO 及另一人
The Court refused the application for leave because the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance nor were there other reasons to submit the case to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; consequentially the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs assessed at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 304
- Parties
- Appellant: SUM YEE MING; First Respondent: THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Second Respondent: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2021
- Case Number
- CACV101/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal After Refusal of Extension of Time by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay first respondent's costs.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Public Importance
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
SUM YEE MING
Appellant
THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
First Respondent
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal After Refusal of Extension of Time by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises matters of general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484)
- 2 Whether there are other reasons for the Court of Final Appeal to grant leave despite lack of public importance
- 3 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused the application for leave because the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance nor were there other reasons to submit the case to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; consequentially the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs assessed at $42,000.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay first respondent's costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Appellant to pay first respondent's costs assessed summarily at $42,000
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV101/2020 [2021] HKCA 304 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴案件2020年第101號 （原高等法院民事訴訟2019年第837號） 原告人 SUM YEE MING 對 第一被告人 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 第二被告人 中國(香港)特別行政區政府 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長林文翰 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 高等法院上訴法庭法官區慶祥 原告人書面陳詞日期： 2021年2月10日及2021年3月1日 第一被告人書面陳詞日期： 2021年2月24日 判案書日期： 2021年3月15日 判案書 上訴法庭法官袁家寧頒發上訴法庭判案書： 2021年1月27日，本庭頒佈判案書，駁回原告人沈女士的延展上訴時限的申請。詳細理由載於判案書，這裡不會複述。 沈女士擬就本庭的判案，上訴至終審法院。2021年2月2日，她提交了一份提出動議通知書，申請上訴許可。 法庭命令以書面處理申請，沈女士及第一被告(宏利)均提交了書面陳詞，第二被告香港政府則沒有提交陳詞。 上訴至終審法院，許可申請必須符合《香港法例》第484章《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的要求，即上訴所涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或有其他理由，令至案件應提交至終審法院受理。 考慮過動議通知書的內容，與及陳詞後，本庭看不到任何具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性的議題，亦看不到有任何其他理由要把案件提交至終審法院受理。沈女士的擬上訴不符合法例的要求，所以本庭駁回上訴許可的申請，並命令沈女士負責第一被告的訟費。 考慮第一被告的訟費陳述書後，本庭以簡易程序，評估為$42,000 。 （林文翰） 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 （袁家寧） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 （區慶祥） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 原告人：無律師代表，親自行事。 第一被告人：由蔣尚義律師行代表。 第二被告人：由律政司代表。