25 Mar 2025
有關劉美施的事宜
- Citation
- [2025] HKCA 282
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV344/2023
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were factual or repetitive, did not raise any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and the specific challenge to the indemnity deed was either not raised below or does not engage a novel legal point; the law does not require an indemnity deed to bear signatures of both indemnifier and indemnified party for validity in the circumstances.