法官迴避申請的標準？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHOY BING WING v PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、倫明高上訴法官、麥機智上訴法官 - 判決日期：2014年6月13日 ### 案情摘要 原告人於2014年3月10日發出上訴許可申請通知書，要求就上訴法庭於2014年2月19日的判決上訴至終審法院。該判決指出，除非原告人於2014年3月5日前提交上訴文件草稿，否則其上訴將被剔除。原告人隨後於2014年4月11日及5月8日再發出兩份通知書，申請林文瀚副庭長及麥機智上訴法官迴避聆訊，並要求撤銷聆訊日期，理由是兩位法官涉嫌「司法欺詐」(judicial frauds)及「偽造令狀」(counterfeit warrants)等嚴重指控。原告人未有提交證據支持其指控。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為： 1. 兩位上訴法庭法官是否應因原告人提出的「司法欺詐」及「偽造令狀」指控而迴避聆訊？ 2. 上訴法庭是否有法定司法管轄權，在原告人未能提交上訴文件草稿的情況下剔除其上訴？ 3. 原告人提出的上訴許可申請是否符合《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance)第22條的要求，即涉及具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題。 ### 判決理由 法庭引用終審法院上訴委員會在 Falcon Private Bank Ltd v Borry Bernard Edouard Charles Ltd 一案中確立的迴避原則，即「一位公正和知情的觀察者是否會認為法庭存在真實的偏見可能性」。法庭認為，原告人未能提交任何證據支持其對兩位法官的嚴重指控，且這些指控是基於對過往判決的錯誤理解和不合理轉化。法庭強調，法官必須警惕出於策略性考慮而提出的無理迴避申請。對於剔除上訴的權力，法庭重申其有權剔除濫用程序 (abuse of process) 的上訴，並指出本案剔除上訴是基於原告人持續藐視法庭指示，而非單純未提交文件。因此，原告人的上訴許可申請不符合《香港終審法院條例》第22條的要求。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了終審法院上訴委員會在 Falcon Private Bank Ltd v Borry Bernard Edouard Charles Ltd FAMV No 49 of 2013, 13 May 2014 一案中確立的法官迴避原則，即「一位公正和知情的觀察者是否會認為法庭存在真實的偏見可能性」。該原則指導了法庭對原告人迴避申請的審理。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了原告人要求兩位法官迴避聆訊的申請，以及撤銷聆訊日期的申請。法庭亦駁回了原告人就2014年2月19日判決上訴至終審法院的許可申請。原告人須支付被告人就這些申請的訟費，如未能達成協議則須評定訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了法官迴避申請的嚴格標準，即必須有客觀證據支持偏見的真實可能性，而非基於主觀或策略性指控。同時，它強調了上訴法庭在處理濫用程序案件中，有權行使酌情權剔除上訴，尤其是在當事人持續藐視法庭指示的情況下。這對未來處理類似的無理纏訟案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: CHOY BING WING v PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lam VP, Lunn JA, Macrae JA - Date of Judgment: 13 June 2014 ### Factual Background The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on 10 March 2014 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision of 19 February 2014. That decision stipulated that the plaintiff's appeal would be struck out unless he produced the draft appeal bundle by 5 March 2014. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed two more Notices of Motion on 11 April and 8 May 2014, seeking the recusal of Lam VP and Macrae JA from the hearing and to vacate the hearing date. The grounds for these applications included serious allegations of "judicial frauds" and "counterfeit warrants" against the two judges. The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support his allegations. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case were: 1. Whether the two Court of Appeal judges should recuse themselves from the hearing based on the plaintiff's allegations of "judicial frauds" and "counterfeit warrants." 2. Whether the Court of Appeal possessed the statutory jurisdiction to strike out an appeal when the plaintiff failed to produce the draft appeal bundle. 3. Whether the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal satisfied the requirements of Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, specifically concerning questions of great general or public importance. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court applied the test for recusal established by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in Falcon Private Bank Ltd v Borry Bernard Edouard Charles Ltd: whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The Court found that the plaintiff had not filed any evidence to support his serious allegations against the two judges, and these allegations were based on a misinterpretation and irrational transformation of past judgments. The Court emphasized that judges must be wary of unjustified recusal applications motivated by tactical considerations. Regarding the power to strike out appeals, the Court reiterated its authority to strike out appeals that constitute an abuse of process, noting that the striking out in this case was due to the plaintiff's persistent contumelious disobedience to court directions, not merely the failure to produce a bundle. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal did not satisfy Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case primarily cited the recusal principle established by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in Falcon Private Bank Ltd v Borry Bernard Edouard Charles Ltd FAMV No 49 of 2013, 13 May 2014. This principle states that a judge should recuse themselves if a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias. This principle guided the Court's decision on the plaintiff's recusal application. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's applications for the recusal of the two judges and to vacate the hearing date. The Court also dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the decision of 19 February 2014. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs for these Notices of Motion, to be taxed if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the strict standard for judicial recusal applications, requiring objective evidence of a real possibility of bias, rather than subjective or tactical allegations. It also underscores the Court of Appeal's discretionary power to strike out appeals in cases of abuse of process, particularly when a litigant persistently disobeys court directions. This has implications for handling similar vexatious litigation in the future. --- ### 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.