Yuen Oi Yee Lisa and Another v. Ngai Ngok Pang and Another

HCMP 2155/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2155 OF 2018

____________

____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 21 March 2019, this court made an injunction order restraining the Plaintiffs from serving any document on NNL (a non-party) or at his address including the one at Laguna City without approval of the court. If any such document was served on NNL without the court’s approval, he would not need to respond including but not limited to passing on those documents to any of the Defendants or responding to any matter stated in those documents.

2.This is an application by the Plaintiffs by summons dated 4 September 2019 for leave to appeal against that order out of time.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, the court has to consider the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal and the degree of prejudice to the other party.

3.Leave to appeal will be granted if there are reasonable prospects of success, ie that the prospects of success are more than fanciful without having to be probable; or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.

4.The original time for seeking leave to appeal against the injunction order expired on 4 April.  There is no explanation at all for a 5‑month delay.  On this ground alone, the application should be dismissed.

5.On merits, the summons mentioned that “there will be fresh proof and evidence to be furnished to the police for investigation against all lies of NNL made to this court on 2 January 2019 when NNL was not a party”.

6.There was no identification of the fresh proof and evidence in the summons and why it was not placed before the court before the injunction order was made.

7.I have considered the letters from the Plaintiffs to my clerk dated 13 and 13 September 2019, from Madam Yuen dated 25 and 30 September 2019; and another letter from Ms Lee dated 9 October 2019.  Those letters purported to adduce evidence, which was not permissible.  Except for the two dated 13 September, the letters that were out of time were not considered.

8.The injunction order was made precisely to prevent a non-party from being pestered by unnecessary service of proceedings and mail to his home. Eventually it was firmly established that the Defendants could be served at another address without troubling NNL.  The Plaintiffs have not shown where this court has erred as a matter of law. 

9.The intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success; nor will it advance the cause of this case, which has been struck out already.  The application is dismissed.

10.The injunction order did not involve any Defendant.  Therefore, I have not ordered the Defendants to file any submission in response to this application for leave to appeal, to avoid wastage of their time and costs.  Hence, Mr Ngai Ngok Pang’s costs incurred for the written submission dated 23 September 2019 will not be granted.

11.The only costs are to read the application papers and the Plaintiffs’ letters to the court.  I order the Plaintiffs to jointly and severally pay the 1^st Defendant, Mr Ngai, costs in the sum of $400.  No costs are awarded to Madam Ngai who has not filed an Acknowledgement of Service.

The Plaintiffs were not represented and filed written submission

The Defendants were not represented and the 1^st Defendant filed written submission