Ng Yat Chi and Another v. China Resources (Holdings) Co Ltd and Others

HCA 424/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 424 OF 2005

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Hon A Cheung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 June 2005

Date of Judgment: 23 June 2005

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 4 July 2005

____________________________________

REASONS  FOR  JUDGMENT

____________________________________

1.On 23 June 2005, I dismissed the 2^nd Plaintiff’s application by motion to disqualify and discharge myself from hearing the applications by the Defendants for restricted proceedings orders against him.  I said I would hand down my reasons later, which I now do.

2.The grounds of the application are:

“	1.	His Lordship Mr Justice Cheung is seen and found to be a dishonest judge by Mr B. W. Choy in his experience with the adjudication of cases by him as DJHC then as he was in HCA No. 119/2001 to cover up perjury committed by a Senior Government Officer of Hong Kong Housing Authority alleging short pile.
	2.	The action in HCA 424/2005 is against the deceit committed by the 1st to 3rd Defendants in their false publications of the true owner of the holding company of the 3rd Defendant, a public listed company registered in HKSAR China under Cap 571 aided and abetted the cover up of such deceit by the 4th Defendant whose duty is prescribed under the said Ordinance Cap 571.  Such serious nature of case cannot be seen fit and proper to be heard by a questionable Judge as Cheung J.”

3.The essential facts of the litigation in HCA 119/2001 can be easily gleaned from a ruling and a judgment, both given by me in that action on 11 July 2002, as well as the reasons for judgment (20 May 2003) handed down by the Court of Appeal (comprising Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA) in CACV 303/2002, which arose out of my judgment.  I will not repeat the same here.

4.In my judgment, I came to the conclusion that the deponent of an affidavit (a Mr Ho) filed in that action (i.e. the senior government officer of the Hong Kong Housing Authority – the defendant in HCA 119/2001 – referred to in the grounds of the present application) did not make a knowingly false assertion in his affidavit.  I further dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs in that case from the order of the master below striking out their statement of claim – the 1^st plaintiff there was represented by the 2^nd Plaintiff in this action (“Mr Choy”), its director.

5.Dissatisfied with my judgment and in particular my conclusion that the deponent in question did not lie in his affidavit, the plaintiffs through Mr Choy made a number of complaints against me (as well as counsel for the Housing Authority and the master below).  The plaintiffs also appealed from my judgment. 

6.The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.  In the course of his judgment, Rogers VP said (at para. 24):

“In dismissing the plaintiffs’ appeal the court considered the decisions of the master and the judge in the court below.  I consider that there are no grounds for disturbing the conclusions and decisions to which the master and judge have come.  I would go further however.  The plaintiffs have consistently heaped abuse on the master and judge.  In the notice of motion seeking to disqualify and discharge myself from hearing the appeal, reference is made to the appeal being “against the crookery acts of the judges below.”  There is not one iota of justification for such an attack on their integrity.  They can, however, take some consolation from the fact that they are not alone in the abuse which has been heaped upon them.  Similar abuse would appear to have been directed at every judge who has given a decision with which Mr Choy did not agree.  Even the Chief Judge of the High Court was accused in the letter of 11 December 2002 of having failed in his duty either incompetently, recklessly or dishonestly.”

7.It is, therefore, clear from the above that Mr Choy’s allegation that I am a “dishonest judge” as shown by my handling of HCA 119/2001 is wholly groundless.

8.It is true that in a subsequent action (HCA 3397/2002) commenced by one of the plaintiffs in HCA 119/2001 (i.e. Mr Chung Kau – who was represented by Mr Choy) against the Housing Authority, the deponent of the affidavit referred to above (Mr Ho) as well as the firm of solicitors which acted for the Housing Authority in the previous action, there was a striking out application that was heard by Mr Recorder Edward Chan SC, who said in his judgment (9 May 2003) that he was unable to conclude that it was unarguable that the affidavit did not contain the alleged lie.

9.It is quite unnecessary and indeed unproductive for me to seek to explain the difference in opinion between myself (and for that matter, the Court of Appeal which affirmed my decision) and the learned recorder in relation to the affidavit.

10.What is important is that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the learned recorder was correct and I was wrong, that would only mean that I had come to the wrong conclusion regarding the affidavit in my judgment in HCA 119/2001. 

11.It is a quantum leap to conclude therefrom that I am guilty of “covering up” the alleged “perjury” committed by the deponent of the affidavit.

12.That was the only basis for complaining that I am a “dishonest judge”, which was the sole premise for seeking my disqualification and discharge.  As that premise was baseless, the application was dismissed.

13.The 1^st Plaintiff did not join in the application.  The Defendants did not see fit to waste time and costs in responding to the application.

14.In those circumstances, I made no order as to costs. 

Mr Ng Yat Chi, the 1^st Plaintiff, unrepresented, absent

The 2^nd Plaintiff, appearing in person

The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, represented by Johnson, Stokes & Master, taking no part at the hearing 

The 4^th Defendant, represented by Clifford Chance, taking no part at the hearing