Xu Yanping v. Hibberd Robin Sidney
|
HCA 492/2026 [2026] HKCFI 5701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 492 OF 2026 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ DECISION ________________________ 1.I refer to my Decision in this matter dated 18 September 2026 (the “Decision”) §§12-14, and adopt the terminology in the Decision. By the Decision, amongst other things, I dismissed P’s Recusal Summons. 2.By a summons dated 21 September 2026 (the “2nd Recusal Summons”) P again seeks orders for my recusal from further hearings/proceedings in this case (with certain consequential orders), and also a reversal of a costs order that I previously made on 3 September 2018. 3.Following receipt of the 2nd Recusal Summons with P’s supporting evidence and submissions, I directed that it would be dealt with on paper without the need for any submissions from D. 4.The 2nd Recusal Summons is vexatious and/or an abuse of process because it is, in essence, a repeat of the Recusal Summons which I have already dismissed. Further it is, in my view, entirely devoid of merit because the grounds relied upon are again, legal and procedural errors that I am alleged to have made in respect of previous applications/hearings. In my opinion this is not, of itself, a ground for alleging actual or apparent bias. 5.As to reversal of the costs order, I have no power to so order since my power to determine costs of the hearing on 3 September 2026 has already been exercised and that function discharged (ie functus officio). In any event, as previously explained (Decision §9), I consider that the order was within the discretion afforded to me on costs. 6.For these reasons, I dismiss the 2nd Recusal Summons. 7.Due to the vexatious/abusive nature of the 2nd Recusal Summons, I take the view that P should pay D’s costs of that summons on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed. I so order; though I expect that such costs would be modest if any. 8.If D wishes to claim such costs, a bill of costs should be lodged within 7 days. If P wishes to object to any items of those costs as unjustified, or unreasonable in amount, she should respond by letter to my clerk (copied to D’s solicitors) within 14 days of receiving the bill of costs.
The plaintiff appearing in person ONC Lawyers, for the defendant | |||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 492/2026