Li Ping Chun, The Co-administratrix of the Estate of Leung Foo Su (or She), The Deceased and Another v. Liang Tonghua

Read the full judgment text of CACV 220/2016 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 May 2017.

1. The appeal by the defendant is scheduled to be heard on 10 May 2017. The date was fixed on 8 December 2016 with the parties’ agreement. On 11 April 2017, the Court received a Notice of Application for Legal Aid dated 10 April 2017 by the defendant. The plaintiffs by summons dated 26 April 2017 requested the lifting of the stay of proceedings by reason of the defendant’s legal aid application.

Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 220/2016
Court
Court of Appeal
Date05 May 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 220/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 745 OF 2011)

________________________

BETWEEN

  LI PING CHUN,
the Co-Administratrix of the Estate of LEUNG FOO SU (or She),
the Deceased
1st Plaintiff
  NG MEI KAM,
the Co-Administratrix of the Estate of LEUNG FOO SU (or She),
the Deceased
2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  LIANG TONGHUA Defendant

________________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Poon JJA in Court
Date of Decision : 5 May 2017

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.The appeal by the defendant is scheduled to be heard on 10 May 2017. The date was fixed on 8 December 2016 with the parties’ agreement. On 11 April 2017, the Court received a Notice of Application for Legal Aid dated 10 April 2017 by the defendant. The plaintiffs by summons dated 26 April 2017 requested the lifting of the stay of proceedings by reason of the defendant’s legal aid application.

2.The defendant had filed a submission in response to the summons and she requested an adjournment of the appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

3.The defendant was until recently legally represented.  Had she really wanted legal aid to represent her, she ought to have made the application earlier.  We agree with the plaintiffs that this is a last minute application by the defendant and an attempt by her to postpone the hearing of the appeal.  From the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, the defendant is the owner of two mortgage free properties and may not even qualify for legal aid on means grounds.  We will not grant the adjournment and will lift the stay.  The appeal will proceed as scheduled.

4.Costs of the application be to the plaintiffs.

(Peter Cheung) (Jeremy Poon)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

The defendant acting in person

Tai, Tang and Chong, solicitors for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs