Shah Ahmed v. Mox Bank Ltd and Another
|
DCCJ 7268/2024 [2026] HKDC 1756 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO 7268 OF 2024 ---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
------------------------- DECISION ------------------------- A. Introduction 1.This is the Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal against this court’s decision dated 29 July 2026 (the “Decision”), in which the court dismissed his application to vary the costs order nisi made in the decision dated 26 May 2026 (the “Costs Order nisi”). 2.In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claims that in around March 2023, a fraudster used his personal data to open a bank account in the Plaintiff’s name with the 1st Defendant. The fraudster subsequently obtained a credit card and bank loans using this account. 3.The Plaintiff lodged complaints regarding the alleged fraud with the North Point Police Station in August 2023 and the Tseung Kwan O Police Station in June 2024. On 27 June 2024, the Plaintiff attended an identity parade and identified the alleged fraudster, whom the police subsequently arrested. 4.The Plaintiff sought $3 million damages against the 2nd Defendant for its alleged severe inaction, slow and inefficient investigation, and dismissive approach toward the fraud, which the Plaintiff claims caused acute hardship, stress, and financial loss. 5.On 20 January 2025, the 2nd Defendant applied to strike out the portions of the Statement of Claim concerning it and sought the dismissal of the action. On 25 July 2025, Master Bianca Yu struck out the relevant parts of the Statement of Claim and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant, ruling that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or was frivolous or vexatious (“Master Yu’s Decision”). 6.The Plaintiff appealed Master Yu’s Decision on 11 August 2025. On 14 October 2025, following a hearing on 9 October 2025, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the Plaintiff’s claim to have no foundation, impossible to succeed, and frivolous (the “Appeal Decision”). 7.On 26 January 2026, the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal out of time against the Appeal Decision (“Leave to Appeal Application”). In the decision dated 26 May 2026, the court dismissed the Leave to Appeal Application and made a costs order nisi that the Plaintiff pay the 2nd Defendant’s costs for the application, with such costs to be summarily assessed on paper, ie the Costs Order nisi. 8.On 1 June 2026, the Plaintiff applied to vary the Costs Order nisi (the “Variation Application”). 9.In the Decision, the court dismissed the Variation Application and ordered that the Costs Order nisi be made absolute. 10.By a summons dated 30 July 2026 (the “Summons”), the Plaintiff made the present application for leave to appeal against the Decision. 11.On 27 August 2026, the court ordered, inter alia, that this application be disposed of on paper. 12.By the Department of Justice’s letter dated 16 September 2026 (“DOJ’s Letter”), the 2nd Defendant indicated that they did not intend to file any submissions. B. Relevant Legal Principles 13.Pursuant to section 63A of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336), leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is satisfied that the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there are some other reasons that the intended appeal should be heard. Reasonable prospect involves the notion that the prospect must be more than “fanciful” without having to be “probable”. See eg Hong Kong Balance International Trading & Logistics Co Ltd v Kwok Yiu Hung and Ng Kwok Wai [2025] HKCA 283, §13, per Kwan VP. 14.The relevant principles on costs have been set out in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Decision and need not be repeated. Importantly, on hearing the parties on costs, the court will not revisit the substantive decision it has made. C. The Application 15.The grounds relied on by the Plaintiff are:
16.As pointed out by the 2nd Defendant in DOJ’s Letter, the purported grounds relied on by the Plaintiff do not give rise to any valid grounds of appeal as they are not directed at the Decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s Variation Application. In this application, the Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific errors or state any reasons why the court has allegedly erred in dismissing the Variation Application. 17.In the premises, the Plaintiff has failed to show any reasonable prospect of success on the merits of his proposed appeal, nor is there any other reasons that the intended appeal should be heard. The Plaintiff’s application is therefore dismissed. 18.Separately, the Plaintiff submitted in his written submissions that there should be a stay of the costs order made in the Decision. Given that this is not part of the Plaintiff’s application in the Summons and, in any event, the application for leave to appeal against the Decision is dismissed, there is no reason for the court to grant any stay. 19.Finally, on costs, as indicated in DOJ’s Letter, the 2nd Defendant has very sensibly refrained from filing any written submissions to avoid incurring further costs. In the premises, I make no order as to costs in respect of the Summons.
The Plaintiff acting in person Mr Mike Yau of Department of Justice, for the 2nd Defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 7268/2024