破產令是否可自動上訴至終審法院？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Re TAM MEI KAM, the Judgment Debtor Ex-parte CHIU, SZETO & CHENG, SOLICITORS (A FIRM), the Judgment Creditor - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐、袁家寧、林文瀚法官 - 判決日期：2013年7月26日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗申請許可上訴至終審法院的案件。申請人Tam Mei Kam女士（債務人）此前向上訴法庭提出上訴，質疑高等法院原訟法庭於2012年4月25日作出的破產令，但該上訴已被上訴法庭於2013年5月8日駁回。Tam女士現尋求許可，就其破產令的上訴向終審法院提出上訴。她爭辯破產令所依據的港幣2,243,938元判決債務的有效性，並提出涉及文件證據評估和司法裁量權的法律問題，以及聲稱存在不公情況。 ### 核心法律爭議 Tam女士提出三項主要法律爭議： 1. 根據《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第22(1)(a)條，是否可就破產令自動上訴，理由是其涉及超過100萬港元的判決債務。 2. 關於法官如何評估文件證據，以及在存在衝突觀點時，文件證據是否具有自我解釋性和決定性，是否涉及重大普遍重要性的法律問題。 3. 聲稱存在不公情況，包括上訴法庭對某份關鍵筆記的處理方式，以及該筆記是否構成對Doris Lau作偽證的確鑿證據。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條，破產令不屬於自動上訴的範圍。法庭引用了Morgan Stanley Emerging Markets Inc v Legend International Resorts Ltd一案，指出上訴是針對破產令本身，而非基礎債務。破產令並非旨在償還債務，因此債務的金額不構成自動上訴的依據。法庭亦認為Tam女士提出的關於文件證據評估的問題不具備重大普遍重要性，且未在本案判決中涉及。最後，法庭不認為存在任何不公情況，因此駁回了上訴許可申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了Tam Mei Kam女士申請許可上訴至終審法院的申請。法庭沒有就訟費作出命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了破產令的上訴權利並非基於基礎債務的金額，而是基於破產令本身的法律問題。這對於理解《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條的適用範圍具有指導意義，特別是在破產和清盤案件中。判決也強調了申請人必須證明其提出的法律問題具有「重大普遍重要性」或存在「不公情況」才能獲得上訴許可。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Re TAM MEI KAM, the Judgment Debtor Ex-parte CHIU, SZETO & CHENG, SOLICITORS (A FIRM), the Judgment Creditor - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Cheung, Yuen and Lam JJA - Date of Judgment: 26 July 2013 ### Factual Background This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant, Madam Tam Mei Kam (the judgment debtor), had previously appealed to the Court of Appeal against a bankruptcy order made by the Court of First Instance on 25 April 2012, but her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 8 May 2013. Madam Tam now seeks leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Final Appeal. She challenges the validity of the judgment debt of HK$2,243,938 leading to the bankruptcy order and raises legal questions concerning the assessment of documentary evidence and judicial discretion, as well as alleging a miscarriage of justice. ### Key Legal Issues Madam Tam raised three main legal issues: 1. Whether an appeal lies as of right under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) for a bankruptcy order, given it involved a judgment debt exceeding HK$1 million. 2. Whether questions regarding how a judge assesses documentary evidence, and whether such evidence is self-explanatory and conclusive amidst conflicting views, are of great general or public importance. 3. Allegations of a miscarriage of justice, including the Court of Appeal's handling of a critical note and whether it constituted conclusive evidence of perjury by Doris Lau. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that a bankruptcy order does not fall under the category of appeals as of right under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The court cited Morgan Stanley Emerging Markets Inc v Legend International Resorts Ltd, stating that the appeal is from the bankruptcy order itself, not the underlying judgment debt. A bankruptcy order does not constitute or lead to an order for repayment of the debt, and thus the amount of the debt does not provide a basis for an appeal as of right. The court also found that the questions raised by Madam Tam regarding the assessment of documentary evidence were not of great general or public importance and were not engaged in its judgment. Finally, the court did not find any injustice or miscarriage of justice, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed Madam Tam Mei Kam's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. There was no order as to costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that the right to appeal a bankruptcy order is not based on the amount of the underlying debt, but on legal questions pertaining to the bankruptcy order itself. This provides guidance on the application of section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, particularly in bankruptcy and winding-up cases. The judgment also underscores the requirement for applicants to demonstrate that their legal questions are of "great general or public importance" or that a "miscarriage of justice" has occurred to obtain leave to appeal. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.