討論:灣仔
|
這篇條目是香港條目提升計劃的一部份，本計劃是為了提升與香港相關的條目之內容質量。歡迎您也參與此提升計劃，從各方面幫助我們改善條目，欲了解詳情，請造訪計劃頁面。 | 2.0 / 5.0 |
| 質量：中 |
於2006年5月3日提名 香港歷史悠久，人口密集的地區，希望可以做到en:Wan Chai這樣內容豐富 -- 沙田友 05:01 2006年5月3日 (UTC)
(＋)支持
- 沙田友 05:01 2006年5月3日 (UTC)
- ✉Hello World! 16:48 2006年5月5日 (UTC)
- Kims6331 02:13 2006年5月14日 (UTC)
(－)反對
意見
- 前者是奧地利建築物，證據在這裡。--DeGmunden (留言) 2008年3月11日 (二) 17:41 (UTC)
Great Public Importance
編輯姚寶昌
法援局的 Certificate by Counsel issued by Gladys Li, SC (Queen’s Counsel) 27 July 2009
13. ….the principles in the Hunter and the Yat Tung cases apply to a case like the present where there has been no final determination of any issue against the plaintiff (IU),…. Most cases which go to the CFA are cases where there has been a full ventilation of issues in the case and the court below has determined those issues in …In this case, so far that has not happened.
14. The reasons given in the Court of Appeal’s judgment are wrong and there has been an incorrect application of the principles in the case of Hunter and Yat Tung…….
15. The Court of Appeal’s error in this case was to treat as 『final』 the striking out by Master Lung of the 2004 Action, the appeal against which was abandoned before Mr. Justice Burrell. There was no determination of issues by Master Lung or Mr. Justice Burrell, unlike in the Hunter case and the Yat Tung case. ………..
“Final” can only be understood to mean the kind of final determination of issues as in Hunter and not on an interlocutory basis. I have not come across any case where without a final determination, it has been considered that a later action amounted to an attempt to mount a collateral attack on the earlier decision and was therefore an abuse of process for the purposes of striking out. In the Yat Tung case, it was an abuse because the issue, although not actually determined in the previous action, could and should have been litigated in the previous action which had proceeded to a full hearing and been determined against the plaintiff.
16. …..Mr. Justice Burrell so he cannot have had any expectation that the striking out of the 2004 Action was the end of the matter. …….
17. For the above reasons, the Court of Appeal was in error in dealing with the appeal on the above basis. …..
19. ….Mr. Iu cited of Shau Lin Chi v. The Sec for Justice CACV 339/1998, the CSRs were treated as being contractually binding for the benefit of the employed CSD officer……..absence of a plea that the survey relied upon by the Government was false or incorrect,…..
20. ……the Master seems to have dealt with it erroneously on this basis. …….
21. ….(Note that in the 2004 Action, the basis of the claim was the Promotion Boards were misled; they cannot have been misled if the alterations and amendments were correct.) ….
基於以上所述，原告人認為第一及第二被告人蓄意或故意或企圖或意圖及妄顧效果地串謀訛騙法庭嚴重妨礙司法公正，因而本申索並不屬於瑣屑無聊或無理纏擾，及/或屬於濫用法院的法律程序，故懇請法庭作出適當、合法、合情及合理命令，公道、公義、公開、公平及公正地審訊本案。
意圖及妄顧效果地串謀訛騙法庭嚴重妨礙司法公正
編輯姚寶昌
法援局的 Certificate by Counsel issued by Gladys Li, SC (Queen’s Counsel) 27 July 2009
13. ….the principles in the Hunter and the Yat Tung cases apply to a case like the present where there has been no final determination of any issue against the plaintiff (IU),…. Most cases which go to the CFA are cases where there has been a full ventilation of issues in the case and the court below has determined those issues in …In this case, so far that has not happened.
14. The reasons given in the Court of Appeal’s judgment are wrong and there has been an incorrect application of the principles in the case of Hunter and Yat Tung…….
15. The Court of Appeal’s error in this case was to treat as 『final』 the striking out by Master Lung of the 2004 Action, the appeal against which was abandoned before Mr. Justice Burrell. There was no determination of issues by Master Lung or Mr. Justice Burrell, unlike in the Hunter case and the Yat Tung case. ………..
“Final” can only be understood to mean the kind of final determination of issues as in Hunter and not on an interlocutory basis. I have not come across any case where without a final determination, it has been considered that a later action amounted to an attempt to mount a collateral attack on the earlier decision and was therefore an abuse of process for the purposes of striking out. In the Yat Tung case, it was an abuse because the issue, although not actually determined in the previous action, could and should have been litigated in the previous action which had proceeded to a full hearing and been determined against the plaintiff.
16. …..Mr. Justice Burrell so he cannot have had any expectation that the striking out of the 2004 Action was the end of the matter. …….
17. For the above reasons, the Court of Appeal was in error in dealing with the appeal on the above basis. …..
19. ….Mr. Iu cited of Shau Lin Chi v. The Sec for Justice CACV 339/1998, the CSRs were treated as being contractually binding for the benefit of the employed CSD officer……..absence of a plea that the survey relied upon by the Government was false or incorrect,…..
20. ……the Master seems to have dealt with it erroneously on this basis. …….
21. ….(Note that in the 2004 Action, the basis of the claim was the Promotion Boards were misled; they cannot have been misled if the alterations and amendments were correct.) ….
基於以上所述，原告人認為第一及第二被告人蓄意或故意或企圖或意圖及妄顧效果地串謀訛騙法庭嚴重妨礙司法公正，因而本申索並不屬於瑣屑無聊或無理纏擾，及/或屬於濫用法院的法律程序，故懇請法庭作出適當、合法、合情及合理命令，公道、公義、公開、公平及公正地審訊本案。