Leung Chung Lan Lorraine v. Hang Seng Bank Ltd

CACV 551/2018

[2020] HKCA 887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 551 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 428 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The plaintiff has been acting in person throughout.

2.On 16 December 2019, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Yuen JA) handed down a judgment (“the CA Judgment”)[1] dismissing the plaintiff’s summons to adduce new evidence in her appeal and granting the relief sought by the defendant bank to strike out the plaintiff’s notice of appeal under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

3.For the relevant factual background and procedural history, we refer to §§4 to 33 of the CA Judgment.  In short, we are satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim in this action (HCA 428/2018) was rightly struck out by Master Hui on 28 September 2018, whose decision was affirmed by Lok J on 14 November 2018, as this is a clear case of an abuse of the process of the court in that the same claim and issue have been conclusively determined against her in the Small Claims Tribunal (SCTC 46908/2016) and the Court of First Instance has dismissed her application for leave to appeal (HCSA 43/2017).

4.On 23 December 2019, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Intended Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the CA Judgment and a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The Notice of Motion referred to an attachment of 45 pages.  The attachment consisted of a document of ten pages dated 23 December 2019 addressed to a clerk of the Court of Appeal and a document of 35 pages dated 18 December 2019 addressed to the Registrar of Civil Appeals.

5.In the above documents, the plaintiff set out her complaints that the staff of the High Court had violated her privacy, rights and freedom in sending to her the notice of the handing down of the CA Judgment, the CA Judgment and a letter asking her to collect the appeal bundle by mentioning her personal details and describing her as the plaintiff acting in person in a legal action on the front of the envelope.  She further complained that the CA Judgment and the letter sent from the High Court Registry are all without the High Court seal.  She reiterated that her claim in HCA 428/2018 is “totally not an appeal case from the Small Claim Tribunal” and Lok J and the Court of Appeal should not apply the judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal or the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap 338 but should apply the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4 in accordance with the High Court procedure. She also referred to matters that have not been admitted as evidence in this action in the hearings before Master Hui and Lok J.

6.The Registrar of Civil Appeals issued directions on 27 December 2019 for the parties to lodge written submissions in respect of the Notice of Motion.  The plaintiff lodged her submission on 13 January 2020, the defendant lodged its submission on 3 March 2020. The Registrar gave directions on 6 May 2020 that the time for the plaintiff to lodge and serve a submission in reply was to be extended to 1 June 2020, and upon compliance with the directions or the expiry of time for doing so, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. In response thereto, the plaintiff sent three letters to the court dated 14, 18 and 28 May 2020. She did not lodge any submission in reply[2].

7.We proceed to deal with the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal[3].

8.In the plaintiff’s submission lodged on 13 January 2020, she repeated the matters in the attachment of 45 pages to the Notice of Motion that have been summarised above.

9.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

10.The plaintiff has simply not identified or formulated any questions which concern matters of great general or public importance, or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. Besides, her intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is wholly devoid of merits.

11.We decline to grant leave to appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion.

12.There is no reason to depart from the general rule that costs of the application should follow the event.  We order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the Notice of Motion.  Having considered the statement of costs submitted by the defendant for summary assessment, we assess the costs that should be paid by the plaintiff at $12,662.

13.The costs order and summary assessment are in the nature of orders nisi and will be made absolute if no application for variation is made by any party within 14 days of the handing down of this judgment.

The Plaintiff (Appellant), acting in person

The Defendant (Respondent), represented by Mayer Brown