X v. MELISSA MOWBRAY-D\'ARBELA AND ANOTHER

X v. MELISSA MOWBRAY-D\'ARBELA AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal is refused because the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success: the Board had determined the same substantive issues and its determinations are capable of operating as res judicata/issue estoppel; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate errors giving reasonable prospect of success and engaged in conduct justifying indemnity costs; consequently the costs order nisi was varied and indemnity costs awarded for the Leave Summons.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 1569
Parties
Plaintiff: X; 1st Defendant: Melissa Mowbray-D’Arbela; 2nd Defendant: Pathfinders Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Case Number
DCCJ3793/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Data Privacy (pdpo) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Costs Order (post Striking Out Decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs order nisi varied as set out; application for stay of execution dismissed; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Leave to Appeal (s63 a District Court Ordinance), Indemnity Costs, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
EN
Data Protection Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs Law Estoppel/res Judicata Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance Res Judicata Issue Estoppel +3 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Plaintiff

Melissa Mowbray-D’Arbela

1st Defendant

Pathfinders Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Data Privacy (pdpo) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Costs Order (post Striking Out Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 63A DCO (reasonable prospect of success or interests of justice)
  2. 2 Whether prior Administrative Appeals Board decisions operate as res judicata/issue estoppel binding the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether decisions of the Board are judicial in character for estoppel purposes

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is refused because the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success: the Board had determined the same substantive issues and its determinations are capable of operating as res judicata/issue estoppel; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate errors giving reasonable prospect of success and engaged in conduct justifying indemnity costs; consequently the costs order nisi was varied and indemnity costs awarded for the Leave Summons.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs order nisi varied as set out; application for stay of execution dismissed; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The plaintiff to pay the costs of D1, including all costs reserved, for the D1 Summons and this action up to 21 February 2017 on a party and party basis and thereafter on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.