逾期上訴申請的合理理由？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHAN BING FOON trading as HOP FAT CAR REPAIRS 及 TSE KEI and CHAN CHUEN trading as MAN YING MOTORS CO. 訴 YU MAN (余民) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：胡國興副庭長、鄧國楨副庭長、袁家寧法官 - 判決日期：2006年12月20日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及七宗上訴案件，源於高等法院於1994年4月19日對余民先生（上訴人）作出的敗訴命令及訟費支付命令。余先生因拒絕支付訟費，導致法庭於2000年7月6日作出收樓令。余先生就此提出上訴，但均告失敗，最終被終審法院於2002年7月31日駁回。余先生於2006年10月23日向高等法院上訴法庭申請逾期許可，以針對上訴法庭於2006年5月30日就該七宗上訴案頒下的判決，向終審法院提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於上訴人余先生是否應獲准逾期向終審法院提出上訴。上訴人聲稱逾期原因是被無律師諮詢處誤導，以為需等待蓋印命令發出後才有28天上訴期。此外，上訴人亦提出兩點補充論據：一是關於其弟謝紹忠代表謝其繼續訴訟的聲明書問題，二是關於法人（legal person）的法律定義，認為他針對的是商號而非合夥人，故原訴訟應被撤銷。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析認為，上訴人聲稱的逾期原因不合理，因為其申請日期已超出其所稱的28天上訴期限，且對此沒有解釋。法庭亦拒絕接納上訴人提出的兩點補充論據：關於聲明書的問題，法庭認為其說法不符合Ladd v Marshall案（[1954] 1 WLR 1489）定下的三項條件；關於法人定義，法庭指出香港法例第4章《高等法院規則》第81號命令已對合夥人以商號名義提出訴訟有所規定，且本案訴訟皆列出有關商號合夥人的姓名為訴訟方，故上訴人論據不成立。鑑於涉訟問題歷時已久，且上訴人未能提供可被接納的逾期合理解釋，法庭不予許可。 ### 引用案例與條文 Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489：法庭引用此案例，拒絕接納上訴人關於聲明書的補充論據，因其不符合該案定下的三項條件。 香港法例第4章《高等法院規則》第81號命令：法庭依據此條文，駁回上訴人關於法人定義的論點，指出該命令已對合夥人以商號名義提出訴訟有所規定。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭拒絕上訴人余民先生逾期向終審法院提出上訴的申請。法庭命令上訴人須支付答辯人就本次申請的訟費，若雙方未能達成協議，則訟費款額由訟費評定官評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了逾期上訴申請必須提供合理且可被接納的解釋，且新證據的提出需符合Ladd v Marshall原則。同時，法庭強調了在香港法律體系中，合夥人以商號名義進行訴訟的法律規定，澄清了法人與合夥人責任的區別。此判決對未來處理類似逾期上訴申請及合夥人訴訟的案件具有參考意義。 --- ### 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: CHAN BING FOON trading as HOP FAT CAR REPAIRS and TSE KEI and CHAN CHUEN trading as MAN YING MOTORS CO. v YU MAN - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Woo VP, Hon Tang VP, Hon Yuen JA - Date of Judgment: 20 December 2006 ### Factual Background This case involved seven appeals stemming from a judgment and costs order made against Mr. Yu Man (the Appellant) by the High Court on 19 April 1994. Due to Mr. Yu's refusal to pay costs, an order for possession was made on 6 July 2000. Mr. Yu's subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, with the Court of Final Appeal dismissing them on 31 July 2002. On 23 October 2006, Mr. Yu applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment of 30 May 2006 concerning these seven appeals. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Appellant, Mr. Yu, should be granted leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal. The Appellant claimed the delay was due to being misled by the Duty Lawyer Service, believing he had 28 days to appeal after the sealed order was issued. Additionally, the Appellant raised two supplementary arguments: one concerning a statement made by Ms. Lau Lai King regarding his brother Tse Shiu Chung continuing the action on behalf of Tse Kei, and another regarding the legal definition of a legal person, arguing that he was targeting the trade names, not the partners, and thus the original action should be vacated. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court found the Appellant's explanation for the delay unreasonable, as his application was made beyond the 28-day period he claimed, with no further explanation. The Court also rejected his two supplementary arguments. Regarding the statement, the Court found it did not meet the three conditions set out in Ladd v Marshall ([1954] 1 WLR 1489). Concerning the definition of a legal person, the Court noted that Order 81 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4, Laws of Hong Kong) governs actions by partners in a firm name, and the current actions listed the names of the partners. Therefore, the Appellant's arguments were unfounded. Given the long-standing nature of the issues and the lack of an acceptable explanation for the delay, leave was refused. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489: The Court cited this case to reject the Appellant's supplementary argument regarding the statement, as it did not meet the three conditions established therein. Order 81 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4, Laws of Hong Kong): The Court relied on this statutory provision to dismiss the Appellant's argument concerning the definition of a legal person, noting that it regulates actions by partners in a firm name. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the Appellant Mr. Yu Man's application for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondents' costs for this application, to be taxed by a taxing master if not agreed upon. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that applications for leave to appeal out of time require a reasonable and acceptable explanation, and the introduction of new evidence must comply with the Ladd v Marshall principles. It also clarifies the legal provisions in Hong Kong governing actions by partners in a firm name, distinguishing between legal persons and partners' liabilities. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving similar out-of-time appeal applications and partnership litigation. --- ### 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.