讨论:湾仔
|
这篇条目是香港条目提升计划的一部分，本计划是为了提升与香港相关的条目之内容质量。欢迎您也参与此提升计划，从各方面帮助我们改善条目，欲了解详情，请造访计划页面。 | 2.0 / 5.0 |
| 质量：中 |
湾仔 (3)
于2006年5月3日提名 香港历史悠久，人口密集的地区，希望可以做到en:Wan Chai这样内容丰富 -- 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)
(－)反对
意见
- 前者是奥地利建筑物，证据在这里。--DeGmunden (留言) 2008年3月11日 (二) 17:41 (UTC)
Great Public Importance
姚宝昌
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.) ….
基于以上所述，原告人认为第一及第二被告人蓄意或故意或企图或意图及妄顾效果地串谋讹骗法庭严重妨碍司法公正，因而本申索并不属于琐屑无聊或无理缠扰，及/或属于滥用法院的法律程序，故恳请法庭作出适当、合法、合情及合理命令，公道、公义、公开、公平及公正地审讯本案。
意图及妄顾效果地串谋讹骗法庭严重妨碍司法公正
姚宝昌
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.) ….
基于以上所述，原告人认为第一及第二被告人蓄意或故意或企图或意图及妄顾效果地串谋讹骗法庭严重妨碍司法公正，因而本申索并不属于琐屑无聊或无理缠扰，及/或属于滥用法院的法律程序，故恳请法庭作出适当、合法、合情及合理命令，公道、公义、公开、公平及公正地审讯本案。