向終審法院上訴的許可標準？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：陳碩謙 訴 醫院管理局 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、袁家寧法官、關淑馨法官 - 判決日期：2016年3月11日 ### 案情摘要 原告人陳碩謙就陳江耀法官於2015年1月23日在高等法院雜項案件HCMP 1096/2012中作出的決定，向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴，但該上訴已於2015年12月14日被駁回。原告人現向高等法院上訴法庭申請許可，以期能向終審法院提出進一步上訴。被告人醫院管理局的代表律師已提交書面陳詞反對原告人的申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告人提出的上訴理據是否符合《香港終審法院條例》(Cap. 484) 第22(1)(b)條所訂明的上訴許可標準，即上訴所涉問題是否具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由應交由終審法院裁決。原告人提出了六項上訴理據，包括「冤枉坐監事宜」及「虛構沒有必須文件事宜」等。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭審閱了原告人的動議通知書及雙方的書面陳詞後，認為原告人未能提出任何符合《香港終審法院條例》第22條規定的理據以獲取上訴許可。法庭指出，原告人並未提出任何具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性的問題，或因其他理由應交由終審法院裁決的問題。法庭重申，本案相關的原則性法律問題並無爭議，且上訴法庭已在其2015年12月14日的判案書中清楚解釋了原審法官的決定並無錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕給予原告人向終審法院上訴的許可，並撤銷原告人於2016年1月4日提出的動議通知書。法庭同時頒令原告人須支付被告人在本申請中的訟費，並將訟費評定為港幣10,000元。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了向終審法院上訴的許可標準，即必須證明上訴問題具有「重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性」。法庭在評定訟費時，對被告方律師提出的金額進行了調整，認為其所用時間及要求金額不合理，並指出書面陳詞不應重複案件背景敘述，這對律師準備訟費申請具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: Chan Shek Him v Hospital Authority - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Hon Yuen JA, Hon Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 11 March 2016 ### Factual Background The applicant, Chan Shek Him, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal after his appeal against a decision by Judge Chan King Yau in HCMP 1096/2012 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 14 December 2015. The Hospital Authority, the respondent, opposed the application for leave to appeal through written submissions. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the applicant's grounds for appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). This requires the appeal to involve a question of great general or public importance, or for other reasons, to be referred to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant raised six grounds, including claims of "wrongful imprisonment" and "fabrication of missing necessary documents." ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal, after considering the applicant's notice of motion and both parties' submissions, found no grounds to grant leave to appeal under section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The court determined that the applicant had not raised any question of great general or public importance, or any other reason warranting a referral to the Court of Final Appeal. The court reiterated that the relevant legal principles were not in dispute, and its previous judgment on 14 December 2015 had clearly explained why the original judge's decision was not erroneous. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed his notice of motion dated 4 January 2016. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs for this application, assessing the costs at HK$10,000. ### Key Takeaways This case underscores the stringent criteria for obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, specifically the requirement to demonstrate a question of "great general or public importance." The court's adjustment of the respondent's requested costs, deeming the time spent and amount claimed unreasonable, and noting that written submissions should not merely repeat background facts, provides guidance for lawyers preparing costs applications. --- ### 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.