人身傷害索賠上訴許可申請？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CB v Apthorp, Brian Drew - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：區(Au)上訴法官及陳(Anthony Chan)法官 - 判決日期：2025年9月11日 ### 案情摘要 原告是一名家庭傭工，聲稱在2018年9月5日至2019年8月6日受僱於被告期間，遭受被告的非禮侵犯，導致人身傷害。原告將其指控分為四類：「身體檢查侵犯」、「性按摩」、「鞭打事件」和「觀看影片事件」。區域法院法官在為期五天的審訊後，駁回了原告的申索。原告其後向區域法院申請上訴許可，亦被駁回。本案是原告向上訴法庭提出的上訴許可申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原告申請上訴許可的理據。原告提出三項上訴理由：(1) 區域法院法官未能識別爭議點並正確應用舉證責任 (burden of proof)；(2) 法官未能說明原告未能證明哪些具體事項；以及 (3) 法官未能駁回被告的積極抗辯。被告則認為原告未能達到上訴許可的合理成功機會 (reasonable prospect of success) 的門檻。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《區域法院條例》第63A(2)條，審視了上訴許可的法律原則，即上訴須有合理成功機會或基於司法利益應予聆訊。法庭指出，由於原審判決是基於事實認定，挑戰原審法官的結論門檻很高。法庭認為，原告未能證明原審法官在識別爭議點或應用舉證責任方面有任何錯誤。原審法官已詳細分析了雙方證據，並明確指出原告未能證明其申索。法庭亦駁回了原告關於被告已承認部分指控的論點，認為被告的抗辯書已全面否認了大部分指控。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了原告的上訴許可申請。法庭裁定原告的申請完全沒有根據，並根據《高等法院規則》第59號命令第2A條第(8)款，命令不得就此決定要求進行口頭聆訊。原告須支付被告的訟費，經簡易評定 (summary assessment) 為港幣80,000元，暫定命令將於14天內成為絕對命令。原告的自身訟費將根據法律援助規例評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了上訴法庭在處理針對事實裁斷的上訴許可申請時，會給予原審法官高度尊重。除非原審法官的裁斷明顯錯誤，例如沒有證據支持、誤解證據或任何合理法官都無法達到的結論，否則上訴法庭不會干預。本案強調了原告方在人身傷害索賠中，即使被告的證據存在問題，仍需自行證明其申索的重要性。 --- ### 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: CB v Apthorp, Brian Drew - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Au JA and Anthony Chan J - Date of Judgment: 11 September 2025 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, a domestic helper, claimed personal injuries resulting from alleged indecent assaults by the defendant during her employment from 5 September 2018 to 6 August 2019. The plaintiff categorized the alleged assaults into four incidents: the Body Check Assault, the Sexual Massages, the Whipping Incidents, and the Video Watching Incident. The District Court judge dismissed the plaintiff's claims after a 5-day trial. The plaintiff's subsequent application for leave to appeal to the District Court was also dismissed. This is the plaintiff's renewed application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the plaintiff's intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or if there was some other reason in the interests of justice for it to be heard. The plaintiff raised three proposed grounds of appeal: (1) the judge erred in failing to identify issues and apply the correct burden of proof; (2) the judge erred in failing to state the exact matters the plaintiff failed to prove; and (3) the judge erred in failing to dismiss the defendant’s positive defences. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal, applying Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, noted that leave to appeal requires a reasonable prospect of success or other reasons in the interests of justice. Given that the judgment was based on findings of primary facts, a high threshold exists for challenging the judge's conclusions. The Court found no error in the judge's identification of issues or application of the burden of proof. The trial judge had conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and clearly stated why the plaintiff failed to prove her case. The Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had made admissions, finding that the Defence and Counterclaim broadly disputed the allegations. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. The application was deemed totally without merit, and an order was made under O 59, r 2A(8) that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application, summarily assessed at HK$80,000, on a nisi basis, to become absolute in 14 days. The plaintiff's own costs are to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reinforces the high deference given to trial judges' findings of fact in appeal applications. Appellate courts will not overturn such findings unless they are plainly wrong, such as being unsupported by evidence, based on a misunderstanding of evidence, or conclusions no reasonable judge could reach. The case highlights that even if a defendant's case has flaws, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving their claim in personal injury cases. --- ### 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.