郭 對 葉
HTML content
FCMC 6248 / 2013
香 港 特 別 行 政 區
區 域 法 院
婚姻訴訟案件編號 2013 年第 6248 宗
————————————————
| 郭 | 呈請人 | |
及 | ||
| 葉 | 答辯人 | |
————————————————
| 主審法官 : 區域法院暫委法官彭家光內庭聆訊(非公開) |
| 審訊日期 : 2015年 1 月 23 日 |
| 判決日期 : 2015年 2 月 6 日 |
-------------------------
判 案 書
(逾期上訴許可申請)
-------------------------
申請
1. 在以下本席簡稱呈請人為「女方」；答辯人為「男方」。
2. 這是一宗男方的上訴許可申請的聆訊。
3. 於2014年10月15日，本席就男方要求法庭頒令本訟案不適合由香港家事法庭審理的申請頒下判案書。男方不滿本席的判決，於2014年11月14日提出上訴許可申請。
4. 根據《區域法院規則》第336H章第58(2)號命令：
「（4）上上訴許可的申請必須在下述限期屆滿前，向法官或(如屬根據第(2)款提出的上訴)向聆案官提出—
(a) ……；
(b) (如屬針對非正審判決、命令或決定以外的判決、命令或決定的上訴)由有關判決、命令或決定的日期起計28天；」
5. 換言之，男方須在2014年11月12日或以前提出上訴許可申請的。但法庭有酌情權決定是否給予延期上訴，在決定如何行使酌情權時，法庭會考慮的因素包括：
(a) 延遲的時間多少；
(b) 延遲的理由；
(c) 倘若給予延期上訴，上訴的成功機會；及
(d) 倘若給予延期上訴，可能對另一方構成的不公平。[1]
6. 在本案而言，男方只是遲了兩天提交他的上訴許可申請，逾期的情況並不算嚴重。
7. 對於未能在限期前提交上訴許可申請，男方的解釋是這樣的：
「因郵遞出問題及與律師朋友考慮如何上訴，所以延遲，另外本人長期上海工作，郵件經常會較慢才收到（最少7天才能收到），又要安排機票來港上訴。」
8. 男方本應親身到法庭領取判決書。無論如何，法庭書記按他的要求將判決書寄給他，他於數天內便可收到。由此，本席認為男方是有充足的時間在限期前提交上訴許可申請。他所謂須請教律師朋友，又或需時間從上海到香港，本席認為都不是能接受的理由。
9. 並無證據顯示若法庭批予延期，可能會對女方造成不公平。
10. 最重要的考慮因素在男方能上訴成功的機會。
11. 在考慮男方的上訴許可申請時，本席須首先考慮香港法例第336章《區域法院條例》第63A條的條文。本席將有關法例的條例節錄如下：
「(1) 根據第63條批予的上訴許可，可—
(a) 就在有關的判決、命令或決定中出現的某個爭論點而批予；及
(b) 在聆訊該許可申請的法官、聆案官或上訴法庭認為為使有關上訴得到公正、迅速及合乎經濟原則的處置而需要的條件的規限下批予。
(2) 聆訊有關上訴許可申請的法官、聆案官或上訴法庭除非信納—
(a) 有關上訴有合理機會得直；或
(b) 有其他有利於秉行公正的理由，因而該上訴應進行聆訊，
否則不得批予上訴許可。」
12. 男方的上訴理由是這樣的：
「1． In the judgment note, it was concluded that I have no plan to stay in China for good because I have not given up my right of abode in Hong Kong, and that I stay in Shanghai purely for career development. Indeed, anyone who is issued a回鄉証could stay indefinitely in Mainland. It appears that the learned judge has deviated from the decision of ZC and CN (Civil Appeal No 255 of 2013). Being unemployed for some seven years since 2000, and I had given hope of getting a job in 2007 in Hong Kong. I am most fortunate to stay employed in Mainland in the past seven years. As a matter of fact, I decided to stay in Mainland for good when Ms Guo told me that she was carrying my baby in March 2010. I decided to build a family with her and stay in Mainland for the rest of my life. It is most unfortunate that our marriage was short lived, and I was forced to leave the marital home after being beaten up by Ms Guo’s father and her uncle when I refused to sign some papers. I have no plan to move back to Hong Kong as I cannot see any good prospect for my working career for staying in Hong Kong. I cannot possibly compete with those young graduates from universities, and eventually ended jobless if I return to Hong Kong. It is a common sense that no one can foretell one’s future and I then cannot confirm in future whether I must stay in China. In this regard, I do not agree with the judge to predict me that I have no plan to stay in China and make a judgment that I have connection to Hong Kong. Moreover, in deciding on the issue of domicile, it appears that excessive weight is put on the assumption that I would return to Hong Kong in future, and ignore the fact that I have been staying in Mainland for seven years, and I am currently staying in Mainland. Indeed, it is true that as an old man with a broken family, I have nothing cling but my remaining esteem to cling onto. I cannot say with absolute certainty that some years later, I may need to lean on the Government of Hong Kong for support, or that I would stay in some elderly homes financed by the charitable organizations in Guangdong. But at this very moment, I still hope to work in Mainland and support myself and my little girl.
2. About the selection of appropriate court for handling this divorce case, the principles established by the Court of Appeal (Cheung JA and Tang JA) om DGC v SLC should be followed. It appears that Shanghai is the most appropriate forum as Ms Guo is holding a temporary residence card issued by the Shanghai Municipal Government, and she also holds a property in Shanghai and I am residing and working in Shanghai. Nevertheless, I would also agree to have the case tried in Shenzhen if Ms Guo so wished. As our case is to judge whether Hong Kong is suitable for a judgment of this divorce case, it is very clear that this is not appropriate as both of us have little connection with Hong Kong.」
13. 扼要來說，他是不滿意本席在證據方面的評估，衡量，和酌情權的運用。男方的論點，其實本席已在作出原本的裁決時加以考量，本席不打算在此再重複的逐點作回應。對於男方現在說在他知道女方懷孕時，他已打算在內地渡過餘年這一點，本席是並不認同的，詳細的證供分析見於判決書第15至24段。對於不便於審理的法院這方面的討論，則可見於判決書其後的段落。
14. 經小心考慮以後，本席認為男方的各點上訴理由並無合理機會得直，本席也看不到任何有利於秉行公正的理由，應進行上訴聆訊。本席拒絕男方的逾期上訴許可申請。
15. 男方的逾期上訴許可申請失敗，須付女方的訟費，如雙方未能同意訟費金額，將來由法庭評定。這是一個暫准命令，如雙方在判案書頒發後的14天內沒有任何申請，有關的暫准訟費命令將轉為絕對命令。
| ( 彭家光 ) | |
| 區域法院暫委法官 |
呈請人：無律師代表，親自出席
答辯人：無律師代表，親自出席
[1]見香港民事訴訟程序2012年第1冊第59號命令第4條 (59/4/9) 及案例Menno Leendert Vos v Global Fair Industrial Limited & Ors（HCMP No. 796/2010）上訴法庭判案書第16段。