Ponomarova Olena v. Master Phoebe Man Deputy Registrar of the High Court

HCAL 190/2023

[2023] HKCFI 3234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 190 OF 2023

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION
(STAY OF EXECUTION)

________________________

A.  Introduction

1.By my Judgment dated 22 November 2023, [2023] HKCFI 1372, I dismissed the Applicant’s application made in these proceedings seeking leave to apply for judicial review of:

(1)  the Director of Legal Aid’s decision dated 7 July 2022 (“DLA Decision”), refusing the Applicant’s legal aid application dated 27 May 2022 to proceed with her claim against her former employer, made in HCA 156/2022; and

(2)  the Master’s Decision in LAA 607/2022, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the DLA Decision.

2.Now, by summons dated 5 December 2023 (“Summons”), the Applicant applies for:

(1)  stay of execution of the Judgment dated 22 November 2023;

(2)  directions with regard to extension of time for starting an appeal case in the Court of Appeal; and

(3)  further or other relief as may be appropriate in the light of the Court’s judgment.

3.In her affidavit in support of the Summons, the Applicant states (amongst other things) that:

(1)  the purpose of the summons is to “protect [her] legal rights and interests, as well as mitigate against the perceived risks for [her] and the authority of Hong Kong’s legal system, including risks of wasted costs, the resources that can be put to a good use and taxpayers’ money”;

(2)  the application is not conceived by her as “an instrument of escalation”;

(3)  she “expects this Court to be acting proactively in applying its declared damage control and mitigation mechanisms against foreseeable risks”;

(4)  she continues to rely on her letter to the Court dated 1 December 2023; and

(5)  she asks the Court to issue directions to her for further handling of the Summons.

4.The Applicant also encloses a copy of documents apparently filed by her in CACV 313/2022, relating to an appeal from an earlier judgment of mine refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge a previous decision of a different Master relating to an earlier legal aid application made by her.  The appeal in CACV 313/2022 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and the documents enclosed relate to the Applicant’s apparent desire to pursue the matter further.

5.I am satisfied that I can deal with the Summons on paper, and do so now.

B.  No Merit in Summons

6.The application made by the Summons is misconceived:

(1)  As already stated, my Judgment refused the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.  There was no effect of that Judgment of which execution might be stayed, and an application for a stay of execution of the Judgment is misconceived.

(2)  If the Applicant is dissatisfied with my refusal of leave, then RHC Order 53 rule 3(4) provides for the ability to appeal against my order to the Court of Appeal, within 14 days after my order.

(3)  Because the rule specifies the relevant time, no directions are necessary as regards the time, or any extension of time, for pursuing an appeal.

(4)  Obviously, it is not the Court’s role to give any advice.

(5)  If the intention behind the Summons is somehow to seek an extension of time, I see no proper basis for extending time, and indeed none is really identified.

(6)  In any event, if the Applicant has failed to bring an appeal in time, she would need to obtain the Court of Appeal’s order to extend time for any appeal she might wish to pursue.

(7)  There is no other relief which is appropriate or necessary in light of my Judgment.

C.  Result

7.The Summons is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

D.  Postscript

8.With respect, the Applicant’s comments about the “risks of wasted costs, the resources that can be put to a good use and taxpayers’ money” appear to me to be misdirected.  Indeed, it is wholly unmeritorious applications like the one made by the Applicant’s present Summons which divert resources away from good use, and waste costs and taxpayers’ money.

The applicant, acting in person