楊家興 對 李群自動化技術(香港)有限公司

楊家興 對 李群自動化技術(香港)有限公司

All three applications were dismissed. The applicant failed to comply with the statutory and procedural prerequisites (including first applying to the District Court), failed to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances or any reasonable prospect of success for the proposed appeals, and improperly sought in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCA 683
Parties
Applicant: Yang Ka Hing; Respondent: QKM Technology (Hong Kong) Co Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 August 2020
Case Number
CAMP293/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Permission Applications (employees' Compensation / Costs) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (oral Hearing Dispensed; Written Determination)
Outcome
All three applications filed 19 November 2019 by the applicant are revoked/dismissed
Legal Topics
Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, Costs Assessment, Procedural Compliance, Committal Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Source Language
ch
Employment / Employees' Compensation Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Contempt/committal Permission to Appeal Extension of Time Costs Assessment +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yang Ka Hing

Applicant

QKM Technology (Hong Kong) Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Permission Applications (employees' Compensation / Costs) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal (oral Hearing Dispensed; Written Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant could directly seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal after refusal by the District Court and out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant extension of time and permission to appeal costs assessments determined by the District Court
  3. 3 Whether a committal (custody) application against a witness should be entertained by the Court of Appeal or must be brought in the lower court

Ratio Decidendi

All three applications were dismissed. The applicant failed to comply with the statutory and procedural prerequisites (including first applying to the District Court), failed to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances or any reasonable prospect of success for the proposed appeals, and improperly sought in the Court of Appeal a committal order that belongs in the lower court. The District Judge's discretionary assessments of costs were within lawful bounds and not open to appellate intervention. The applications were therefore an abuse of process and were revoked, with costs ordered against the applicant for the primary application.

Court Disposition

All three applications filed 19 November 2019 by the applicant are revoked/dismissed

Orders

  • Applications filed 19 November 2019 (three summonses) revoked/dismissed
  • Pursuant to High Court Rules Order 59 rule 2A(8) applicant is barred from requesting a rehearing under rule 2A(7) in a hearing at which both parties attend