逾期上訴許可申請的考慮因素？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、關淑馨上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2015年9月24日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告向上訴法庭申請逾期提交上訴許可通知書，以針對上訴法庭於2014年8月21日作出的判決提出上訴。此前，第六被告已提出類似申請，但於2015年1月29日被駁回。原告的申請基於與第六被告相同的理據。此外，上訴法庭需處理原訟法庭訟費判決中懸而未決的事宜，特別是關於成功被告方應否獲得全額訟費的問題。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原告申請逾期提交上訴許可通知書是否應獲批准。法院需考慮延誤時間長短、延誤原因、上訴成功機會及對答辯人造成的損害。其次，法院需決定原訟法庭訟費判決中，成功被告方應獲多少折扣的訟費，考慮因素包括被告方在審訊中盤問與案件無直接關係的問題、提出不成功的中期申請、法官對被告方證據的評估以及被告方在和解談判中的態度。 ### 判決理由 法院在審理逾期申請時，考慮了延誤時間長短、延誤原因、上訴成功機會及對答辯人造成的損害等因素。法院認為延誤時間長達七個月屬實質性延誤，且原告未能提供合理解釋，其一直有法律代表。法院亦指出，原告擬提出的上訴理據與第六被告先前被駁回的理據相同，且缺乏勝訴機會。因此，法院裁定該申請濫用程序並駁回。至於訟費問題，法院認為被告方在審訊中的行為（包括提出不成功的中期申請、證據評估及和解態度）應導致其獲得的訟費有所折扣，但需進一步聆訊以確定具體折扣比例。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法院駁回原告逾期提交上訴許可通知書的申請，並裁定原告須以彌償基準支付第一、第四、第五、第七及第九被告的訟費，金額定為港幣100,914元（其中港幣40,000元為大律師費用）。對於原訟法庭的訟費問題，法院指示將安排一次30分鐘的聆訊，以聽取各方就訟費折扣比例的進一步陳詞。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了申請逾期上訴時，申請人需提供充分的延誤理由及證明上訴有合理成功機會。即使有法律代表，長時間的延誤仍難以被接受。此外，法院在評估訟費時，會考慮訴訟各方在審訊過程中的行為，包括是否提出不必要的問題或不成功的申請，以及和解的誠意，這些因素可能導致成功一方的訟費被折扣。 --- ### 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: TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 24 September 2015 ### Factual Background This case concerns the Plaintiff's application for leave to file and serve a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time against the Court of Appeal's judgment of 21 August 2014. Previously, the 6th Defendant had made a similar application, which was dismissed on 29 January 2015. The Plaintiff's application was based on the same grounds as the 6th Defendant's. Additionally, the Court of Appeal needed to address outstanding issues regarding costs below, specifically whether the successful defendants should be awarded full costs. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue is whether the Plaintiff's application for leave to file an appeal out of time should be granted. The court must consider the length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent. Secondly, the court needs to determine the appropriate discount for costs awarded to the successful defendants in the court below, taking into account factors such as the defendants' cross-examination on irrelevant issues, unsuccessful interlocutory applications, the judge's assessment of their evidence, and their conduct in settlement negotiations. ### Ratio Decidendi In considering the out-of-time application, the court applied the usual factors: length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent. The court found the seven-month delay substantial and the Plaintiff's explanation unreasonable, noting she was legally represented throughout. The court also determined that the intended grounds of appeal were the same as those previously rejected for the 6th Defendant and lacked merit. Consequently, the application was deemed an abuse of process and dismissed. Regarding costs below, the court found that the defendants' conduct during trial (unsuccessful interlocutory applications, evidence assessment, and settlement attitude) warranted a discount on their costs, requiring a further hearing to determine the specific percentage. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for leave to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal out of time. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th Defendants on an indemnity basis, fixed at HK$100,914 (including HK$40,000 for counsel fees). For the outstanding costs issues from the court below, the court directed a 30-minute hearing to hear further submissions on the global assessment of costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores that applicants seeking to appeal out of time must provide compelling reasons for the delay and demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success. Long delays are generally not excused, even with legal representation. Furthermore, courts will scrutinize parties' conduct during litigation, including unnecessary questioning, unsuccessful applications, and genuine efforts at settlement, when assessing costs, potentially leading to discounts on costs awarded to successful parties. --- ### 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.