上訴許可申請的門檻？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：曾春段 v 宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張舉能首席法官、林文瀚上訴法庭副庭長 - 判決日期：2017年12月7日 ### 案情摘要 申請人（原告人）以已故謝文豪遺產承辦人身份，向宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司（被告人）索償謝文豪生前購買的人壽保險。被告人以謝文豪投保時未如實披露健康狀況為由，廢止保險合約並拒絕索償。原告人於區域法院提出訴訟，追討50萬港元保險金。區域法院裁定投保人失實陳述及未作關鍵披露，被告人可撤銷合約，駁回原告人申索。原告人申請上訴許可被拒後，現向高等法院上訴法庭申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原告人提出的上訴理由是否符合《區域法院條例》第63A(2)條規定的上訴許可門檻，即上訴是否有合理機會得直，或是否有其他有利於秉行公正的理由。原告人提出多項上訴理由，包括指控被告人非法獲取醫療記錄、保險公司行為表明保險有效，以及指控原審法官偏袒被告人及大律師行為不當。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚在判案書中指出，上訴並非重新陳述案情或提出新論據的場合。上訴庭主要考慮原審法官的判決是否犯錯，且新證據或論點須符合Ladd v Marshall及Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates等準則方可接納。衡量證據和證人可信性是原審法官的責任，上訴庭只會在原審法官明顯犯錯時才推翻事實裁決。法庭認為原告人提出的上訴理由，包括對原審法官及大律師的指控，缺乏客觀事實及證據支持，不符合上訴許可的要求。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《區域法院條例》第63(1)條及第63A(2)條，闡明上訴許可的法定要求。同時引用了Ladd v Marshall準則及Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates案例，說明上訴庭接納新證據和新論點的嚴格限制。此外，亦引用了Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen [2002] 3 HKLRD 1及China Gold Finance Ltd v CIL Holdings Ltd CACV 11/2015，強調上訴庭在推翻原審法官事實裁決上的審慎態度。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕給予原告人上訴許可，並頒令任何一方不得要求重新考慮此裁定。法庭亦命令原告人須支付被告人在本傳票中的訟費，並將訟費定於港幣20,000元。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港上訴法庭在處理上訴許可申請時的嚴格原則，特別是關於新證據、新論點的引入限制，以及對原審法官事實裁決的尊重。判決強調，僅憑主觀感受而無客觀證據支持的指控，不足以構成上訴理由。此外，法庭對訟費的處理方式，即在特定情況下直接定額訟費，也值得留意。 --- ### 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: Tsang Chun Tuen v Manulife (International) Limited - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Cheung CJHC, Lam VP - Date of Judgment: 7 December 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant (plaintiff), as the administratrix of the estate of the deceased Tse Man Ho, claimed against Manulife (International) Limited (defendant) for a life insurance policy purchased by the deceased. The defendant rescinded the policy and rejected the claim, alleging that the deceased failed to disclose his health conditions truthfully at the time of application. The plaintiff initiated proceedings in the District Court, seeking HK$500,000 in insurance benefits. The District Court ruled that the insured made misrepresentations and failed to make material disclosures, allowing the defendant to rescind the contract, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. After her application for leave to appeal was refused, the plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in this case is whether the grounds of appeal raised by the plaintiff meet the threshold for leave to appeal under section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, i.e., whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or if there are other reasons in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard. The plaintiff raised several grounds, including allegations that the defendant illegally obtained medical records, that the insurer's actions indicated the policy remained valid, and accusations of bias against the trial judge and misconduct by counsel. ### Ratio Decidendi Vice President Lam, in his judgment, stated that an appeal is not an opportunity for a litigant to re-state their case or introduce new arguments. The Court of Appeal primarily considers whether the trial judge's decision contained errors. New evidence or arguments must meet strict criteria, such as those in Ladd v Marshall and Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates. Assessing evidence and witness credibility is the trial judge's responsibility, and the Court of Appeal will only overturn findings of fact if the trial judge made a clear error. The court found that the plaintiff's grounds of appeal, including allegations against the trial judge and counsel, lacked objective factual and evidentiary support and did not meet the requirements for leave to appeal. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited sections 63(1) and 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, outlining the statutory requirements for leave to appeal. It also referred to the Ladd v Marshall criteria and Flywin Co Ltd v Strong & Associates, illustrating the strict limitations on the Court of Appeal accepting new evidence and arguments. Furthermore, Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen [2002] 3 HKLRD 1 and China Gold Finance Ltd v CIL Holdings Ltd CACV 11/2015 were cited to emphasize the appellate court's cautious approach to overturning a trial judge's findings of fact. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused to grant the plaintiff leave to appeal and ordered that neither party could request a reconsideration of this decision in an oral hearing. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs for this summons, fixing the costs at HK$20,000. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the strict principles applied by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal when considering applications for leave to appeal, particularly regarding the introduction of new evidence and arguments, and deference to the trial judge's findings of fact. The judgment emphasizes that allegations based solely on subjective feelings without objective evidence are insufficient grounds for appeal. Additionally, the court's approach to costs, specifically fixing a sum in certain circumstances, is noteworthy. --- ### 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.