賴容 對 曾繁光

賴容 對 曾繁光

The Court refused the leave application and struck out the untimely appeal because the core dispute over the meaning of 'remitted' in the psychiatric context required expert evidence and could not be resolved on paper, and because the claim included allegations of deliberate dishonesty/fraud which are not amenable to summary judgment; the appellant had no real prospect of success, so leave was refused and costs were awarded to the respondent (fixed at HKD 55,000).

Citation
[2018] HKCA 201
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: 賴容; Defendant/respondent: 曾繁光
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2018
Case Number
CAMP15/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (extension of Time) and Related Appeal Arising From a Summary Judgment / Negligence Claim / Appellate Interlocutory Determination: Leave Application Refused and Appeal Struck Out
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; CACV 291/2017 struck out for being filed without permission; costs awarded to respondent fixed at HKD 55,000; prohibition on parties seeking reconsideration of the Court's paragraph 17 determination in oral hearing.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Late Filing/extension of Time, Expert Evidence, Allegation of Deliberate Dishonesty/fraud, Meaning of 'remitted' in Psychiatric Context
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Professional Negligence Evidence Appeal Costs Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

賴容

Plaintiff/applicant

曾繁光

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (extension of Time) and Related Appeal Arising From a Summary Judgment / Negligence Claim / Appellate Interlocutory Determination: Leave Application Refused and Appeal Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment could be granted absent expert evidence on the medical term 'remitted'
  2. 2 Whether claims alleging deliberate dishonesty/fraud are suitable for summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal filed out of time should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the leave application and struck out the untimely appeal because the core dispute over the meaning of 'remitted' in the psychiatric context required expert evidence and could not be resolved on paper, and because the claim included allegations of deliberate dishonesty/fraud which are not amenable to summary judgment; the appellant had no real prospect of success, so leave was refused and costs were awarded to the respondent (fixed at HKD 55,000).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; CACV 291/2017 struck out for being filed without permission; costs awarded to respondent fixed at HKD 55,000; prohibition on parties seeking reconsideration of the Court's paragraph 17 determination in oral hearing.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal in CAMP 15/2018 refused
  • Appeal CACV 291/2017 struck out