Chan Siu Lun v. Hui Cho Yee and Another

CACV000317/1999

CACV 317 & 318/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 317 & 318 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM H.C.P.I. 120 OF 1997)

Coram: Hon Wong JA in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 6 January 2000

Date of Decision: 6 January 2000

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

Wong JA:

1. There are before me three applications this morning : two by the Plaintiff for (1) stay of execution pending appeal and (2) for consolidation of Civil Appeal Nos. 317 of 1999 and 318 of 1999. The other application is by the Defendants for security for costs of appeal.

2. Before me are Mr Tam for the 2 Defendants and the Plaintiff, Mr Chan, who appears in person. Mr Tam indicated at the outset that he has no objection to Civil Appeal Nos 317 & 318 of 1999 to be consolidated and heard together. That matter does not raise any argument or dispute.

3. The Plaintiff, Mr Chan, complains that the summons and the accompanying documents on the application for security for costs of appeal were served on him only two days ago and that did not give him sufficient time to prepare his arguments on this particular issue. In the circumstances, Mr Tam agreed and applied for this matter to be adjourned sine die with liberty to the Defendants to restore the application.

4. The only outstanding issue is the Plaintiff's application for the stay of execution of the Tax Costs Order made by Master Ho. That order was the subject of an appeal which was heard before Cheung J who dismissed it and the plaintiff now appeals to this court against that order. It is not necessary for me to state the facts of the case or the history of the proceedings as they had been dealt with in many judgments at different levels of the High Court.

5. The facts were also set out in full details in the affirmation of Mr Tam Chi-wai filed on 30 December 1999.

6. This matter had been litigated and there had been attempts to re-litigate and it is still litigating with no end in sight. The Plaintiff will not relent until he gets what he wants. He will stop at nothing. Unfortunately, this is not a case that he can get what he wants. He will, I am afraid, persist to the very bitter end, with no advantage to himself. He listens to no advice and will not accept any judgment that is not in his favour. So the sad tale will go on. It is quite clear that there is no prospect of his succeeding in his attempts. The issues are quite clear. He has obtained judgments in his favour, although in a sum that he has not thought to be enough, but that is a different matter.

7. He appealed against the judgment of the trial judge to the Court of Appeal which increased the amount of damages to a slight extent. He applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal against that judgment but failed.

8. I fail to see how the matter can continue any further. It will not be to the advantage of the plaintiff himself and I hope he will consider his position again carefully and rationally.

9. In so far as the order of Master Ho is concerned, there was a taxation hearing and the Master reached his decision on the materials before him having regard to the time and expenses that were incurred in the proceedings. I do not think that Master Ho's determination on the amount of costs can in anyway be regarded as erroneous or excessive.

10. There is absolutely no merit in the application for a stay of that order. In these circumstances, I make the following orders :-

1. Consolidation of the two appeals.

2. The application for a stay of execution of the order of Master Ho on the tax costs is dismissed.

3. The application for security for costs of appeal by the Defendants is adjourned sine die with liberty to the Defendants to restore.

4. Costs of today will be costs in the cause.

Representation:

Plaintiff : Chan Siu Lun, in person

Mr Tam Chi Wai of M/S T.S. Tong & Co. for the Defendants