Wong Yuk Tung v. Wong Po Ling (also known as Wong Po Ling Clara) and Another

HCA 899/2012

[2021] HKCFI 1740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 899 OF 2012

______________________

____________________

Before: Hon Lisa Wong J in Chambers (paper disposal)

Date of Application: 17 May 2021

Date of Decision: 17 June 2021

______________________

DECISION ON COSTS

______________________

1.In this decision, unless otherwise stated, I shall continue to use the definitions and abbreviations adopted in the last reasoned decision that I handed down in this action on 5 May 2021 (“5.5.2021 Decision”) and references to numbered paragraphs are to paragraphs of such decision.

2.By the 5.5.2021 Decision, I dismissed the Application (by Clara (the 1^st defendant) for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the 27.6.2018 Decision by which I, inter alia, gave standard directions for the taking of certain accounts by the defendants that I ordered after trial on 30 September 2016).

3.I further made an order nisi that Clara should pay the costs of and occasioned to Father (the plaintiff) by the Application, to be taxed if not agreed on an indemnity basis (“Costs Order Nisi”).

4.By a letter dated 17 May 2021 addressed to this court and apparently copied to Father’s solicitors, Clara stated the following:

“Regarding paragraph 23 of the Decision dated 5^th May 2021, please indicate what kinds of loss, damage, or hurt the Defendants have caused whom or which party in this Application resulting in a cost order nisi on an indemnity basis. Please indicate fact instead of view (opinion).

The Defendants object to a cost order nisi on an indemnity basis.” (original emphasis)

5.I shall treat Clara’s said letter dated 17 May 2021 as making an application to vary the Costs Order Nisi.

6.I dismiss such application.

7.As concluded in [23], the Application is an abuse of the court’s process.  In so ruling, I took into account the following matters.

8.First, as observed in [14] to [21]:

(1)  The Application was made out of time for 2 years and 257 days.

(2)  There was no or no credible excuse for such extremely serious delay.

(3)  The proposed appeal against the 27.6.2018 Decision was based on grounds that are utterly devoid of merits.

(4)  The Application was another attempt by Clara and the Company to further sabotage Father’s recovery of the Kam Fai Proceeds, the St Louis Flat 1D Proceeds and St Louis Flat 25C, to which Father had obtained judgment back in September 2016.

9.Second, as stated in [23] and summarised in [3] to [11], I viewed the Application against the background of Clara’s preceding litigation behaviour in:

(1)  refusing to render the accounts ordered against her and the Company[1] in breach of multiple court orders made against them since September 2016;

(2)  seriously missing deadlines for appeal with the delays then followed by repeated applications for leave to appeal out of time; and

(3)  then using the applications for leave to appeal out of time to ground applications for stay of execution of the judgment and orders against her (and the Company) pending the intended appeals or leave applications.

10.It can be seen that the Application fell into the same pattern.

11.Given that the only effect of Clara’s said litigation strategy was the delay of Father’s recovery of the Kam Fai Proceeds, the St Louis Flat 1D Proceeds and St Louis Flat 25C, it would not be unreasonable for one to think that such tactics were adopted precisely to achieve such an improper object.

12.For the above reasons, the Costs Order Nisi shall stand.

13.As Clara is unrepresented and since I have not called upon Father to respond to her application to vary the Costs Order Nisi, I make no order as to costs on this occasion.

Edmund Cheung & Co, for the plaintiff

The defendants were unrepresented

[1] Solely controlled by Clara.