HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
2008

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV118/2013YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER
  • CACV207/2008YUEN OI YEE LISA v. ROBERT LAM
  • CACV245/2022YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK LEONG
  • CACV272/2005YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD
  • CACV285/2006YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAI YU FAI
  • CACV289/2006YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HO YIU KUEN JACKY AND OTHERS
  • CACV290/2006YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND ANOTHER
  • CACV325/2006YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND ANOTHER
  • CACV348/2007YUEN OI YEE LISA v. ROBERT LAM
  • CACV436/2006YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD
  • CACV553/2020YUEN OI YEE LISA 對 NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人
  • CAMP161/2018YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP217/2019YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP282/2019YUEN OI YEE LISA 對 NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人
  • CAMP295/2019YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP296/2019YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP82/2023YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ5441/2003YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HEATH CO LTD AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ7080/2003YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHIU WING WAH, WILSON
  • DCCJ7081/2003YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHAN KAM WAH, KENT

Files (2)

61854-EN-2008-07-24

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA

HTML content

CACV 142/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.142 OF 2008

(On Appeal from HCA 2107 of 2006)

----------------------

BETWEEN  
 YUEN OI YEE LISAPlaintiff
 and 
 LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDADefendant

----------------------

Before: Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of hearing and judgment: 24 July 2008

 

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

 

Hon. Yuen JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s dismissal on 13 June 2008 of her appeal from Lam J’s refusal to grant her leave to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to Practice Direction 11.3 (regarding Restrictive Proceedings Orders).  

2.  As has been explained in our Reasons for Judgment handed down on 17 June 2008, Lam J was right to refuse leave as the proceedings which Madam Yuen wished to issue was an application for leave to apply for judicial review of a judgment of the Court of First Instance  and two judgments of the Court of Appeal and it is well-established that judicial review is not available against the High Court (including the Court of Appeal) as they are superior courts of record. 

3.  We have read the contents of Madam Yuen’s Notice of Motion.  We do not see any ground for giving her leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under either limb of s.22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap. 484 and this application must accordingly be dismissed.

(PETER CHEUNG) (MARIA YUEN)
Justice of AppealJustice of Appeal

The Plaintiff (Appellant) in person

61418-EN-2008-06-17

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA

HTML content

CACV 142/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.142 OF 2008

(On Appeal from HCA 2107/2006)

___________________________

BETWEEN:

 YUEN OI YEE LISAPlaintiff
 and 
 LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDADefendant

Before: Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of hearing and judgment: 13 June 2008

Date of Reasons for judgment: 17 June 2008

------------------------------------

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

-----------------------------------

Hon. Cheung JA:

1.  I agree with Yuen JA’s reasons.

 

Hon Yuen JA:

2.  At the hearing on 13 June 2008 there were before us:

(1)     Madam Yuen’s appeal from Lam J’s refusal to grant her leave to issue fresh proceedings pursuant to Practice Direction 11.3 (regarding Restrictive Proceedings Orders);

(2)     Madam Yuen’s summons filed on 5 June 2008 to adduce certain evidence; and

(3)     Madam Yuen’s summons filed on 11 June 2008 to adduce certain further evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal and the two summonses and indicated that we would give our reasons in writing in due course.  These are my reasons.

3.  The proceedings which Madam Yuen sought leave to issue was an application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The Form 86A indicated on its face that the judgment, order, decision or other proceedings in respect of which relief was claimed was one judgment of the Court of First Instance and two judgments of the Court of Appeal.  The relief sought was “to rescind and annul the Bankruptcy Order dated 27th February 2008”.   

4.  It is well-established that judicial review is not available against the High Court (including the Court of Appeal) as they are superior courts of record : Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2008 vol.1 p.844 §53/14/21.  Lam J was therefore clearly right when he refused leave to issue this application for leave to apply for judicial review, saying that “there cannot be any judicial review in respect of the judicial decisions identified in Form 86A.  Nor can the court grant the relief prayed for in a judicial review”. 

5.  None of the matters in Madam Yuen’s affirmations filed pursuant to her two summonses were relevant to Lam J’s decision or the reasons for them.

6.  Accordingly we dismissed the appeal and the two summonses.

 

 

(PETER CHEUNG)
Justice of Appeal 
(MARIA YUEN)
Justice of Appeal

The Plaintiff (Appellant) in person