Achieve Goal Holdings Ltd v. Zhong Xin Ore-material Holding Co Ltd

HCA 1987/2005

[2023] HKCFI 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1987 OF 2005

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

(By original action)

AND BETWEEN

________________________

(By counterclaim)

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is the hearing of the Summons dated 22 May 2023 (“Summons”)  issued by Mr Zeng Wei (“Mr Zeng”)  for extension of time and for leave to appeal against the decision of this court dated 4 May 2023 that Mr Zeng be joined as a party to these proceedings for the purpose of costs only, pursuant to the Amended Summons dated 13 September 2022 (“Costs Summons”)  issued by the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs (by counterclaim)  (“Bai Jun Camp”).

2.Given that the Summons was only late for a relatively short period of 4 days, the Bai Jun Camp does not raise any issue on such delay.

3.However, I agree with Bai Jun Camp’s submission that Mr Zeng’s application under the Summons lacks substantive merits and should be dismissed since the intended appeal has no “reasonable prospect of success”.  In particular, Mr Zeng has not explained how this court has committed an error of law or was plainly wrong in exercising its discretion.

Ground 1: Jurisdiction

4.First, Mr Zeng had never challenged, but instead expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of this court at the hearing on 4 May 2023.  At that hearing, Mr Zeng personally attended the court to voice his opposition to the Costs Summons on substantive grounds, without ever raising the issue of jurisdiction.

5.Further, in the circumstances of the present case, the Costs Summons has been properly served on Mr Zeng.  Mr Zeng had clearly acquired knowledge of the existence of the Costs Summons, and with that knowledge, he admittedly came within the jurisdiction of this court by attending the hearing before Ng J on 17 January 2023 and before me on 4 May 2023. (see: Du Huizhen v Chen Mei Huan, HCA 1176/2012 (unrep, 15/07/2014), §§26-33)

Ground 2: Language

6.This intended ground of appeal is plainly unarguable as the decision of this court to use either or both of the official languages in any proceedings is final (see: section 5(1)  and (2)  of the Official Languages Ordinance, Cap 5).

7.Further, as to language of the written documents served on Mr Zeng, Mr Zeng never made any application under rule 5(4)  of the High Court Civil Procedure (Use of Language)  Rules, Cap 5C, neither had he made any valid official request to the Bai Jun Camp under rule 5(1)  and (2)  in the first place.

Ground 3: Impecuniosity and Retirement from the relevant companies

8.The claim by Mr Zeng that he has no financial resources to pay any costs ordered against him is hollow when he has not provided any evidence as to his personal wealth, income and assets.

9.As to whether Mr Zeng has truly retired from the relevant companies is a matter to be investigated further during the second stage.  Furthermore, Mr Zeng only purported to retire in 2021, after most of the relevant legal costs have already been incurred.

Ground 4: Conduct of the Bai Jun Camp

10.This is a repeat of the complaints in Grounds 1 and 2, which have been dealt with above.

Ground 5: Delay

11.Mr Zeng has not identified the period of delay that he is complaining against the Bai Jun Camp.  It can be noted that the anti-suit injunction was granted on 26 August 2022.

12.Furthermore, as submitted by the Bai Jun Camp, Bai Jun Camp’s intention to seek a costs order against Mr Zeng was already raised during the hearing on 14 June 2022 when the anti-suit injunction was sought.  This has been duly recorded at paragraphs 72 and 73 of the Judgment of this court dated 26 August 2022.

Conclusion

13.For all the reasons set out above, the Summons is dismissed.  I further order that the costs of the Summons be paid by Mr Zeng to the Bai Jun Camp, such costs are to be summarily assessed on paper with the directions that the Bai Jun Camp do lodge and serve its Statement of Costs on Mr Zeng at the Shenzhen address within 14 days, and Mr Zeng do lodge and serve his Grounds of Objection within 14 days thereafter.

Mr Clark Wang, instructed by Messrs Kwok, Ng & Chan, for the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs (by Counterclaim)

Messrs So, Lung & Associates, for the 1^st and 2^nd defendants (by Counterclaim)  were excused

Mr Zeng Wei appeared in person