Chan Kwok Kuen v. Lai Yat Ho and Others

HCMP 300/2025

[2025] HKCFI 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 300 OF 2025

____________

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.In the evening of 25 February 2025, the Plaintiff (“P”) obtained ex parte Mareva and proprietary injunctions against the Defendants (“Ds”) from Mrs Justice Barnes (“the Ex Parte Order”). Today is the return date of the Ex Parte Order and the hearing of P’s Inter Partes Summons dated 27 February 2025 (“the Inter Partes Summons”) for continuation of the Ex Parte Order.

2.When no hearing bundles and submissions were filed in breach of PD 5.3 paragraphs 7.1 and 7.3 by yesterday afternoon, this court caused enquiries to be made with P’s counsel[1] on whether submissions would be lodged. By then the court had received submissions from Ds’ counsel dated 6 March 2025 (“Ds’ Skeleton”) which stated at the outset that Ds had not received any submissions nor the hearing bundles from P and the submissions therein were lodged without sight of P’s submissions.

3.Only around 5:30pm or thereafter yesterday did I receive from P’s counsel firstly a fax of P’s Submissions without annexes referred to therein and then after 6pm, 58 pages of P’s Submissions with the annexes.

4.In P’s Submissions, firstly, it was stated that the submissions filed for the Ex Parte Summons were adopted and that those papers have been served on Ds. However, that is hardly satisfactory. The Inter Partes Summons seeks an order that the Ex Parte Order be “continued, with such addition or variation to the terms, duration, effect and undertaking as this Honourable Court may deem fit”. It is hardly to be known from reading the Inter Partes Summons without any submissions what exactly is sought by P and the basis for so seeking. The submissions filed in support of the Ex Parte Summons can hardly assist.

5.Secondly, in P’s Submissions, it referred to steps taken since the hearing on 25 February 2025, e.g. the service of documents on Ds and that P discovered that there were further misappropriations by the 1^st and 4^th Defendants. In respect of this latter matter, which are serious allegations, instead of this being put in an affirmation filed in support of the Inter Parte Summons and such affirmation being contained in a paginated hearing bundles for today’s hearing, these matter were put before by me by way of the long annexes to P’s Submissions faxed to me the night before.

6.Thirdly, riding on the fact, as indicated in Ds’ Skeleton, that Ds seek to vary the injunction granted for living expenses allowances pending the determination of the Inter Parte Summons but has not filed any evidence in support (which they could hardly be blamed when those representing Ds were instructed on 4 March 2025, and the lack of hearing bundles and submissions probably did not help the matter), it is only made plain therein that P would agree to D’s proposed directions for filing of evidence but would oppose any variation of the Ex Parte Order. However, P overlooks that this is his application to continue the Ex Parte Order and if his legal representatives, as officers of the court, fail to lodge any submissions, and evidence if necessary, to assist the court, they should not be allowed to make any submissions without leave of the court. The result may be that the Ex Parte Order will lapse today without any order for its continuation.

7.The fact of the matter is that today this court received no assistance and is not able to deal with the application to continue and/or vary the Ex Parte Order due to the lack of hearing bundles (still) and the very late receipt of P’s Submissions (even following the efforts of this court and its clerk which is not to be taken for granted).

8.It has to be stressed that preparation of hearing bundles and lodging of skeleton submissions in accordance with PD 5.3 are of utmost importance when invariably on Summons Day the Summons Judge has before it many summonses. To have no assistance from the parties (in particular from the applicant seeking the interlocutory order, as often the respondent is only served the relevant documents shortly before the first return date) in terms of preparing the hearing bundles and a succinct skeleton, which necessitates the Court to spend time to dig up the relevant documents from the court files and inquire with legal representatives on their position and then only to receive at the last minute or late into the evening the night before Summons Day confirmation of their position is hardly conducive to the underlying objectives of the Rules of the High Court. It is also not a fair distribution of precious judicial resources when other parties are waiting for the determination of their Summons on Summons Day.

9.Although Ms Chong has submitted that the non-compliance was due to discussion on settlement with Ds’ solicitors with a view to dispose of today’s hearing by consent but ultimately could not be so disposed due to no agreement on the variation of the living expenses to be allowed, this is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the PD.

10.In view of the manner that this application has been handled by P’s legal representatives, the breaches of the PD which necessitated the adjournment of the Inter Partes Summons and wasting of judicial resources, I am of the view that I should accede to Ds’ application for the costs of today’s hearing be paid by P^[2] to be summarily assessed on paper, if not agreed. I would require P’s solicitors to write to this Court within 14 days to show cause why the court should not make an order that such costs should be paid by P’s solicitors personally.

11.The Inter-Partes Summons shall be adjourned to the next Summons Day on 14 March 2025 and the Ex Parte Order be continued until then or further order of the Court.

Ms. Sezen Chong, instructed by Jackson Ho & Co., for the Plaintiff

Mr. Lavesh Kirpalani, instructed by ATL Law Offices, for the 1^st to 5^th Defendants