上訴許可申請的合理成功機會？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ho Yuen Ki Winnie 及 Moon Valley Foundation Limited 訴 Ho Hung Sun Stanley 及 Sociedade de Turismo E Diversoes de Macau, S.A. - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Hon A Cheung J - 判決日期：2009年5月25日 ### 案情摘要 本案原告人Ho Yuen Ki Winnie及Moon Valley Foundation Limited申請就原訟法庭於2009年4月29日作出的文件披露 (discovery) 命令提出上訴許可 (leave to appeal)。該訴訟於2006年展開，而文件披露問題於2008年首次提出。原訟法庭已於2009年4月29日就部分文件披露申請作出裁決並頒布判詞。原告人現尋求上訴許可，以挑戰該文件披露命令。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告人申請上訴許可，以挑戰原訟法庭就文件披露命令所作的裁決。根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第14AA條，申請人必須證明上訴有合理成功機會 (reasonable prospect of success) 才能獲批上訴許可。法庭需判斷原告人提出的上訴理據是否具備合理成功機會，以及即使有此機會，是否應行使酌情權 (discretion) 批准上訴。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《高等法院條例》第14AA(4)(a)條，審視了原告人提出的上訴理據，包括在聆訊中首次提出的新論點。法官不認為原告人的上訴具有合理成功機會。此外，法官考慮到本案自2006年開始，文件披露問題自2008年起已拖延多時，認為雙方應將精力集中於推進案件審訊，而非在文件披露問題上進行更多上訴程序。即使上訴有合理成功機會，法官亦會行使酌情權拒絕批予許可，以避免進一步延誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了原告人就文件披露命令提出的上訴許可申請。然而，法庭批准暫緩執行文件披露命令，直至原告人向上訴法庭申請上訴許可的最終結果確定為止，前提是原告人須在五天內向上訴法庭提交申請。第一被告人獲判訟費，並以總額評定為60,000港元。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了《高等法院條例》第14AA條下上訴許可申請的雙重門檻：首先是上訴須有合理成功機會，其次是法庭的酌情權。即使滿足了合理成功機會的要求，法庭仍可基於案件管理和避免不必要延誤的考慮，行使酌情權拒絕批予許可。這對未來涉及上訴許可申請的案件具有指導意義，特別是在案件進展緩慢的情況下。 --- ### 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: Ho Yuen Ki Winnie and Moon Valley Foundation Limited v Ho Hung Sun Stanley and Sociedade de Turismo E Diversoes de Macau, S.A. - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon A Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 25 May 2009 ### Factual Background The plaintiffs, Ho Yuen Ki Winnie and Moon Valley Foundation Limited, sought leave to appeal an order for discovery made by the Court of First Instance on 29 April 2009. The action commenced in 2006, and the issue of discovery first arose in 2008. The Court of First Instance had already delivered its judgment and made an order for discovery of some, but not all, of the documents requested. The plaintiffs are now seeking leave to appeal this discovery order. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to appeal the Court of First Instance's discovery order. Under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, leave shall not be granted unless the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The court needed to determine if the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and, even if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, applying section 14AA(4)(a) of the High Court Ordinance, considered the plaintiffs' intended grounds of appeal, including a new point raised orally for the first time. The judge was not convinced that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. Furthermore, considering the slow progress of the action since 2006 and the prolonged discovery issue since 2008, the judge opined that the parties' efforts would be better directed towards the prosecution and defence of the main action rather than further appellate proceedings on discovery. Even if there were a reasonable prospect of success, the judge would have exercised discretion to refuse leave to avoid further delay. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court refused the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal the discovery order. However, a stay of the discovery order was granted, pending the final outcome of the plaintiffs' intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, provided the plaintiffs file the application within five days. Costs were awarded to the 1st Defendant, assessed at a gross sum of HK$60,000. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the two-pronged test for leave to appeal under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance: the requirement of a reasonable prospect of success and the court's discretion. Even if the reasonable prospect of success is met, the court may still exercise its discretion to refuse leave based on case management considerations and to prevent undue delay. This has implications for future leave to appeal applications, especially in cases with slow progress. --- ### 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.