上訴許可及暫緩執行命令的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited v Yan Kwok Yip 及其他案件 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：陳錦泉區域法院法官 - 判決日期：2025年12月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及四宗由香港平民屋宇有限公司（原告人）向大坑西新邨的四名被告人（甄先生、曹女士、關先生、譚女士）提出的收回物業管有權訴訟。原告人已在早前的判案書中勝訴，命令被告人交還單位空置管有權。本判決理由書處理被告人提出的上訴許可申請、更改暫准訟費命令申請，以及暫緩執行收樓命令申請。被告人主要爭議其單位租約的有效性、歷史背景下平民屋宇的「準公共房屋機構」性質，以及其作為租戶的權益。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於： 1. 被告人提出的上訴理據是否具有合理機會得直（reasonable prospect of success），以獲批上訴許可。 2. 被告人是否有充分理由更改法院早前作出的暫准訟費命令（interim costs order）。 3. 被告人是否有理據暫緩執行收樓命令（order for possession），特別是考慮到重建計劃的影響及其他租戶的利益。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《區域法院條例》第336章第63A條，裁定除非擬上訴有合理機會得直或有利於秉行公正，否則不批予上訴許可。法官強調，單純重複原審論點不足以構成合理機會得直。對於訟費，法官重申訟費應跟隨訴訟結果，經濟困難並非免除訟費責任的理由。關於暫緩執行命令，法官引用上訴法庭原則，指出勝訴方不應被剝奪訴訟成果，且申請方須證明有可爭辯的上訴理據。法官認為被告人的上訴理據缺乏法律依據，且未能指出原審判決在法律應用或事實裁斷上的錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例和條例： - SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125：確立上訴許可的「合理機會得直」標準，即機會須合理而非空想。 - Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 §59/2A/4 及 §62/3/3：關於上訴許可和訟費原則的指引。 - Li Kim Sang Victor 對 陳綺霞 HCA 481/2008：指出經濟能力負擔不來不是免卻訟費責任的理由。 - 劉華 訴 香港醫務委員會 [2024] HKCA 157：闡明暫緩執行法庭命令的原則。 - Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014)；Wong Myra Repizo v Ling Fung Coach and School Service Co Ltd & Another, CACV 64/2015, unreported, 7 December 2015；Norman Guy Donald and Another v Lee Michael Chak Chuen in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Li Pak Iu and Others [2024] HKCA 403：強調單純重複原審論點不足以滿足上訴許可要求。 - 馮國雄 對 張淑霞及另三人 [2025] HKCA 1128：重申上訴人須針對原審法官的判案書指出具體錯誤。 - 《區域法院條例》（Cap 336）第63A條：關於上訴許可的規定。 - 《區域法院規則》（Cap 336A）第62號命令第3條規則：關於訟費的原則。 - the Emergency (Resettlement Areas) Regulations 1952 及 Resettlement Ordinance 1958：涉及徙置區的相關法律基礎。 - Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) 第10條：被告人曾提及但未在原審中提出。 ### 裁決與命令 法官拒絕了所有被告人的上訴許可申請、更改暫准訟費命令申請，以及暫緩執行收樓命令申請。法官命令各被告人支付原告人的訟費，但在5509案關先生及5582案譚女士的申請中發出大律師證書。原告人承諾不會在2026年2月1日之前強制收回涉案單位的管有權，以平衡各方利益。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴許可申請的嚴格標準，即上訴理據必須具有合理機會得直，而非僅僅重複原審論點或提出新論點。同時，判決強調了訟費跟隨訴訟結果的原則，並闡明了暫緩執行命令的考量因素，包括勝訴方的權益和公共利益。法官亦在判詞中表達了對平民屋宇應考慮以人為本方式處理曹女士個案的期望，這屬於法官的附帶意見（obiter dicta）。 --- ### 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: The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited v Yan Kwok Yip and others - Court: District Court - Judge: His Honour Judge Chan Kam Chuen - Date of Judgment: 31 December 2025 ### Factual Background This case involves four actions brought by The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (the Plaintiff) against four defendants (Mr. Yan, Ms. Cho, Mr. Kwan, and Ms. Tam) for possession of their units in Tai Hang Sai Estate. The Plaintiff had previously succeeded in obtaining orders for vacant possession. This judgment addresses the defendants' applications for leave to appeal, variation of interim costs orders, and stay of execution of the possession orders. The defendants primarily challenged the validity of their tenancy agreements, the historical "quasi-public housing body" nature of the Plaintiff, and their rights as tenants in the context of the estate's redevelopment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in dispute were: 1. Whether the defendants' proposed grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success to warrant leave to appeal. 2. Whether the defendants provided sufficient grounds to vary the interim costs orders previously made by the court. 3. Whether there were valid reasons to grant a stay of execution of the possession orders, particularly considering the impact on the redevelopment plan and the interests of other tenants. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, citing section 63A of the District Court Ordinance, ruled that leave to appeal would not be granted unless there was a reasonable prospect of success or other reasons in the interests of justice. He emphasized that merely reiterating arguments made at trial was insufficient. Regarding costs, the judge reaffirmed the principle that costs follow the event, and financial hardship is not a ground for exemption. For stays of execution, the judge referred to Court of Appeal principles, stating that a successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of litigation, and applicants must show arguable grounds of appeal. The judge found the defendants' appeal grounds lacked legal basis and failed to identify errors in the original judgment's application of law or findings of fact. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases and statutory provisions were cited: - SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125: Established the standard for "reasonable prospect of success" for leave to appeal, requiring the prospect to be realistic, not fanciful. - Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 §59/2A/4 and §62/3/3: Guidance on principles of leave to appeal and costs. - Li Kim Sang Victor v Chan Yee Ha HCA 481/2008: Held that inability to afford costs is not a reason to be relieved of costs liability. - Lau Wah v The Medical Council of Hong Kong [2024] HKCA 157: Clarified principles for staying execution of court orders. - Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014); Wong Myra Repizo v Ling Fung Coach and School Service Co Ltd & Another, CACV 64/2015, unreported, 7 December 2015; Norman Guy Donald and Another v Lee Michael Chak Chuen in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Li Pak Iu and Others [2024] HKCA 403: Emphasized that merely repeating trial arguments does not satisfy the requirements for leave to appeal. - Fung Kwok Hung v Cheung Suk Ha and 3 others [2025] HKCA 1128: Reaffirmed that appellants must specifically identify errors in the trial judge's decision. - District Court Ordinance (Cap 336), section 63A: Provisions concerning leave to appeal. - District Court Rules (Cap 336A), Order 62, rule 3: Principles regarding costs. - The Emergency (Resettlement Areas) Regulations 1952 and Resettlement Ordinance 1958: Relevant legal basis concerning resettlement areas. - Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383), Article 10: Mentioned by a defendant but not raised at trial. ### Decision & Orders The judge refused all defendants' applications for leave to appeal, applications to vary interim costs orders, and applications for a stay of execution of the possession orders. The judge ordered the defendants to pay the Plaintiff's costs, with a certificate for counsel in Mr. Kwan's (DCCJ 5509) and Ms. Tam's (DCCJ 5582) applications. The Plaintiff undertook not to enforce possession orders before 1 February 2026, balancing the interests of all parties. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the stringent criteria for granting leave to appeal, requiring a reasonable prospect of success rather than mere re-argument of trial points or introduction of new ones. It also reinforces the principle that costs follow the event and clarifies the factors considered for granting a stay of execution, including the successful party's rights and public interest. The judge also expressed an expectation that the Plaintiff should consider Ms. Cho's case in a humanitarian manner, which constitutes obiter dicta. --- ### 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.