Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Ngai Ngok Pang and Another
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 295/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 December 2020 before Cheung JA, Chu JA, Au JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – summary assessment of costs – whether question of great general or public importance – Practice Direction 2.1 – skeleton submissions – plaintiff in person – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 s.22(1)(b) – by the judgment dated 31 August 2020, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1st defendant's costs in CAMP 295/2019 and the costs of the 1st and 2nd defendants in CAMP 296/2019 to be summarily assessed – on 19 October 2020, the Court of Appeal summarily assessed the 1st defendant's costs at $5,000 in CAMP 295/2019 and $2,100 in CAMP 296/2019 – plaintiff filed notices of motion for leave to appeal but failed to lodge skeleton submissions as required by Practice Direction 2.1 – notice of motion in CAMP 295/2019 did not contain any proposed question for determination and enclosed only letters expressing dissatisfaction with various judges – notice of motion in CAMP 296/2019 was identical – whether the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of Cap. 484 was met – the matters stated did not constitute viable grounds of appeal as they bore no relevance to the costs assessment decision – no question of great general or public importance identified – no basis for granting leave on the 'or otherwise' limb – court determined applications on paper without oral hearing – leave refused in both applications and notices of motion dismissed – no order as to costs of the notices of motion since defendants took no step in the application.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted regarding the summary assessment of costs
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused in both CAMP 295/2019 and CAMP 296/2019; notices of motion dismissed.
Cites 4 cases
|
CAMP 295/2019 & CAMP 296/2019 (Heard together) [2020] HKCA 999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 295 OF 2019 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2829 OF 2012) ___________________
___________________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 296 OF 2019 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2829 OF 2012) ___________________
__________________ (Heard together)
_________________________ JUDGMENT _________________________ Hon Chu JA giving the judgment of the court: 1.By the judgment dated 31 August 2020[1] of this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA), the plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1st defendant’s costs in CAMP 295/2019 and the costs of the 1st and 2nd defendants in CAMP 296/2019 to be summarily assessed. On 19 October 2020, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our decision[2] which summarily assessed the 1st defendant’s costs to be paid by the plaintiff at $5,000 in CAMP 295/2019 and $2,100 in CAMP 296/2019. 2.On 2 November 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion in each of the two actions to apply for leave to appeal the decision of 19 October 2020. 3.By the directions given on 2 November 2020 by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the directions in paragraph 2.1 of the Practice Direction 2.1 apply automatically. Paragraph 3(a) of the Practice Direction requires the plaintiff to lodge and serve skeleton submissions within 14 days of the filing of the notice of motion. Despite this, the plaintiff has not lodged any written submission. 4.Having considered the notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the materials before us. 5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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. CAMP 295/2019 6.The notice of motion filed in CAMP 295/2019 did not contain any proposed question to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. It enclosed six letters to the court, five from the plaintiff and one from her daughter. The notice of motion stated, in gist, that CAMP 295/2019 and CAMP 296/2019 had led to HCMP 1128/2020 and CACV 553/2020, many judges had been driven mad by the 1st defendant but without solving the problem, and the plaintiff was forced to issue applications to appeal so that the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal could “digest” “the mentality” of the first instance judge, judges in the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court. 7.The matters stated in the notice of motion do not constitute viable grounds of appeal. They bear no relevance to the decision in question, which is an assessment of costs. Most importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified. There is also no basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 8.As the statutory threshold for granting leave to appeal has not been met, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion. Since the defendants have taken no step in the application, we make no order as to the costs of the notice of motion. CAMP 296/2019 9.The notice of motion filed in CAMP 296/2019 is identical to the one filed in CAMP 295/2019. 10.For the reasons set out in [7] above, the statutory threshold for granting leave to appeal has not been met. Accordingly, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion. We also make no order as to the costs of the notice of motion.
The plaintiff, unrepresented, acted in person The 1st defendant, unrepresented, acted in person The 2nd defendant, unrepresented, acted in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 295/2019