Re Leung Chung Hang Sixtus

CAMP 153/2020

[2020] HKCA 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 153OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCB 5651/2020)

____________________

____________________

____________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 4 September 2020, Doris Leung (calling herself an Intended Party) filed a summons for setting aside the bankruptcy petition and proceedings brought by the Legislative Council Commission against Mr Leung Chung Hang, Sixtus (“Mr Leung”) in HCB 5651/2020. She did not serve the summons on any party.

2.The bankruptcy petition is scheduled for hearing on 2 December 2020.

3.The Registrar of Civil Appeals (“RCA”) issued the following directions on 25 September 2020:

“ 1. It is not clear what [Doris Leung] is seeking for in her Summons as the Summons and the documents lodged by her are unfocussed, convoluted and unintelligible.

2. It may be gathered from the Summons and documents lodged that [Doris Leung] is seeking to set aside a bankruptcy petition presented against Mr. Leung Chung Hang Sixtus in HCB 5651/2020. However, [Doris Leung] is not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings, she has no locus to set aside the petition. In any event, if the set aside application is to be taken out (by the appropriate party), it has to be dealt with in the court below and not in the Court of Appeal.

3. For the reasons stated above, the Summons is liable to be struck out.  If [Doris Leung] does not agree, she may on or before 12 October 2020 lodge her written submissions stating why the Summons should not be struck out…”

4.Doris Leung lodged her written submissions on 12 October 2020.  She claimed that she is authorized on behalf of the debtor to liaise with all parties concerned in the bankruptcy proceedings in HCB 5651/2020 and referred to “privileged documents” filed in CACV 115/2020 for the purpose of showing the same.  She also submitted that such document is evidence that her equitable interest would be affected by the outcome of the bankruptcy petition.  She further submitted that she has standing because she is an “implied” nominee pursuant to the Bankruptcy Ordinance, Cap 6 and the Bankruptcy Rules, Cap 6A.

5.We have read the so-called “privileged documents” which were attached to her letter of 30 September 2020 to the clerk to the RCA lodged in the present proceedings.  We cannot see any basis for asserting that they were privileged documents in the present context.  Nor can we see any legal basis for asserting that they authorized Doris Leung to act on behalf of Mr Leung in court proceedings.

6.In fact, as Doris Leung is not a qualified lawyer, she cannot represent Mr Leung. 

7.Nor can we see, on the materials before us, any basis for Doris Leung’s assertion that she has some equitable interest in Mr Leung’s estate or that she was appointed as “implied nominee” for Mr Leung.

8.In any event, as the RCA noted, any application by Doris Leung should be made to the Court of First Instance, not the Court of Appeal.

9.For these reasons, we strike out Doris Leung’s summons of 4 September 2020 as an abuse of process and dismiss the summons accordingly.

10.We are aware that Doris Leung had previously made numerous unmeritorious applications to the courts in respect of litigations involving Mr Leung in which she herself was not a party.  Those applications had all been struck out and substantial judicial resources have been wasted: see [2018] HKCFI 255; [2018] HKCFI 359; [2018] HKCFI 719; [2018] HKCA 599; [2018] HKCA 600; [2018] HKCA 919; [2018] HKCA 921; [2018] HKCA 922; [2019] HKDC 1691; [2020] HKDC 827 and [2020] HKCA 377.

11.It is high time that the court should put a stop to Doris Leung’s irresponsible and persistent abuses of the court process.  We are considering if a Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”) and Restricted Application Order (“RAO”) under Practice Direction 11.3 should be made against Doris Leung concerning cases involving Mr Leung.

12.We shall give Doris Leung a chance to make representation as to whether such orders should be made against her.  She can lodge submissions (3 sets, not more than 5 pages each) in this regard within 14 days.

13.We take the view that in the consideration on whether a RPO and RAO should be made, given the public interest involved and the implications on access to justice, particularly when the proceedings before it is ex parte in nature, if the court deems it appropriate to do so, the Court could direct the Secretary for Justice to be joined as a party for the RPO and RAO proceedings. 

14.We are of the view that in the present case, it is appropriate to direct that the Secretary for Justice be joined as a party to these proceedings to advance submissions on whether a RPO and RAO should be made against Doris Leung and the formulation of the relevant orders.

15.The Secretary for Justice is joined as an interested party accordingly.  A copy of this judgement will be given to the Secretary for Justice.

16.After Doris Leung lodges her submissions in accordance with [12] above, the Court shall notify the Secretary for Justice and those acting for her shall have leave to inspect and make copy of the documents in the court file.   

17.The Secretary for Justice shall lodge and serve submissions on RPO and RAO within 28 days after inspection of the court file.

18.After reading the submissions, the Court shall direct if there is any need for an oral hearing on RPO and RAO.

19.A copy of this judgment shall also be furnished to the parties in HCB 5651/2020 for their information.

Intended party acting in person