Wai Hung Stationery Co and Others v. Department of Justice and Others
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 1/1998 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 20 February 1998 before Litton Ag.CJ, Ching PJ, Bokhary PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – application under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – applicants issued writ against government defendants with incoherent statement of claim alleging various grievances against officials – Master Chu struck out statement of claim and dismissed action with costs – appeal to Deputy Judge under Order 58 of the Rules of the High Court dismissed – notice of appeal to Court of Appeal lodged out of time – whether order of Deputy Judge was interlocutory for purposes of Order 59 Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court – First Pacific Bank v. Robert H.P. Fung 'applications' test applied – time limit expired on 9 October 1997 – notice lodged on 15 October 1997 out of time – whether inarticulate grievances disclose any cause of action known to the law – no grounds of appeal known to the law existed – statement of claim failed to articulate any recognisable cause of action – no satisfactory excuse for delay advanced – application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal issues: Whether the order dismissing the appeal from Master Chu was interlocutory for time limit purposes · Whether the applicants' grievances disclosed any cause of action known to the law · Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed with costs.
Cited by 7 cases
|
FAMV No. 1 of 1998 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1 OF 1998 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ____________________
____________________ Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Litton Ag. CJ, Mr Justice Ching, PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary, PJ Date of Hearing : 20 February 1998 Date of Determination : 20 February 1998 __________________________ D E T E R M I N A T I O N __________________________ Litton, Acting Chief Justice: 1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee, on an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal brought under s32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. 2. The matter comes to us in this way. On 24 June 1997 the applicants caused a writ to be issued in the High Court against three defendants: the Hong Kong Government, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise and the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. The statement of claim indorsed in the writ said: "The manage affair unsuitable and unfair. So that causes the statement of claim. $30,700,000." This was accompanied by a document addressed to the Acting Chief Justice in which the applicants said they wished to institute proceedings against various government officials. A number of alleged grievances were set out, such as the fact that electricity supply had been cut from their shop, documents forged, court orders violated, the business registration certificate of their business revoked. These allegations were subsequently supplemented by further documents lodged in court, such as, for instance, a complaint that people had incited the applicants' 3 sons to become big spenders and the fact that the first applicant had, subsequent to the issue of the writ, wrongly been accused of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. We do not purport to set out all the applicants' alleged grievances. These have been detailed in the judgments in the courts below. 3. On 16 July 1997 the defendants took out a summons applying for an order that the statement of claim be struck out and the action dismissed. This was heard by Master Chu who acceded to the application, dismissing the action with costs. The applicants appealed against the dismissal of their action under Order 58 of the Rules of the High Court and their appeal was heard by Deputy Judge Wong on 22 September 1997. This appeal was dismissed on the same day, the formal judgment being sealed and perfected 3 days later, on 25 September. On 15 October the applicants lodged a notice of appeal, appealing against Deputy Judge Wong's judgment, but this was ordered to be struck out by the Court of Appeal on 24 December, on the ground that the notice of appeal was out of time and no reasons had been advanced for the delay. The Court of Appeal also concluded in effect (although it expressed itself somewhat differently) (i) that the notice of appeal did not "qualify" as a proper notice of appeal - meaning that it failed to set out grounds of appeal and (ii) that the applicants' inarticulate grievances against the authorities disclosed no cause of action known to the law. 4. The Court of Appeal was plainly correct in treating the order of 25 September 1997 as "interlocutory" for the purposes of the time limit set out in Order 59 Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court: applying the "applications" test referred to in First Pacific Bank v. Robert H.P. Fung [1990]1 HKLR 527 at 529-H. Accordingly, the time for lodging the notice of appeal expired on 9 October 1997. The Court of Appeal found no satisfactory excuse for lodging the notice of appeal out of time. The applicants now tell us that although Deputy Judge Wong dismissed his appeal on 22 September, it was not until 29 September that the formal order was received. That, in our view, is beside the point. The reality is that, from beginning to end, no grounds of appeal known to the law existed and the Court of Appeal was right in so concluding. 5. There are no possible grounds for allowing this matter to proceed any further. Whatever the applicants' grievances, they cannot form the basis for relief unless they constitute causes of action known to the law, and are properly formulated in accordance with law. We dismiss the application, with costs.
Representation: Applicants in person Mr Simon K.C. Lam, instructed by Department of Justice for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents |
Other judgments that cite this case