Read the full judgment text of HCA 600/2015 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 20 January 2017 before Deputy High Court Judge Anson Wong, SC.
Civil procedure – Legal Aid – Stay of proceedings under section 15 of the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap 91) and Regulation 7A of the Legal Aid Regulations (Cap 91A) – Whether to uplift stay where defendants filed legal aid applications within a week of trial – Adverse possession claim relating to Lot 343 in Demarcation District 110 – Defendants purchased land for $900,000 for leisure farming – Whether last-minute legal aid applications amount to abuse of process – Whether exceptional circumstances justify varying fixed trial date under Order 25 rule 1B(3) of the Rules of the High Court – Primary function of court is to do justice between parties – Statutory stay is an aid to, not an obstacle to, the administration of justice – Litigant has no right to abort trial by making fresh legal aid application on eve of trial – Litigants have duty to apply for legal aid in good time and with due diligence – Defendants had prior experience of legal aid applications and knew of processing time – Defendants informed of cost estimate in November 2016 but did not apply until January 2017 – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Application found to be abuse of process and attempt to sabotage trial – Balance of prejudice favours plaintiff – Stay lifted – Trial adjourned to 20 January 2017 – Defendants given opportunity to consider engaging private lawyers – Costs in the cause.
Legal issues: Whether to uplift the statutory stay under s.15 of the Legal Aid Ordinance arising from the defendants' last-minute legal aid applications · Whether the defendants' last-minute legal aid applications constitute an abuse of process
Outcome: Stay lifted; trial adjourned to 20 January 2017; defendants ordered to consider engaging private lawyers.
Cites 7 cases