Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Robert Lam

cacv 348/2007

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 348 of 2007

(on appeal from HCA NO. 2742 of 2006)

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before : Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing : 13 February 2008

Date of Judgment : 13 February 2008

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an appeal from a decision of Lam J.  The nub of this appeal is that Lam J ordered this case to be transferred to the District Court.  He did so because the claim in this case is for a sum of $463,641.00 plus interest.  The interest may be very high and Miss Yuen, who has very ably argued her case on her own behalf, has said that the interest might well bring the total claim or the total sum awarded on a judgment above a million dollars.  That may be so, but since the capital sum claimed is the $463,641.00, the claim does come within the District Court.

2.Miss Yuen is apprehensive, to say the least, about transfer to the District Court because the judge in the court below, Lam J, is very familiar with this case.  He has made a number of orders on not only this case but, of course, other cases in which Miss Yuen has been involved as well and, in particular, he has made restrictive application orders.

3.What has transpired in this case is that he has reserved to himself the restrictive application order and any applications made in respect of it so that if Miss Yuen wants to make any applications, she will have to get orders from Lam J.  Miss Yuen says that this is counter-productive because it would be much easier if Lam J were to hear the applications as well.

4.That may be so but, on the other hand, it does not mean to say that even if this case stays in the High Court, it will stay in Lam J’s court.  The Clerk of the Court will allot any applications and any trials to judges who are free to hear them.  The fact that Lam J will be hearing the restrictive application orders does not mean to say that he would hear all the applications and, in fact, the trial of the action if it comes to a trial.  I take on board that when the matter is transferred to the District Court, the District Court judge may have to spend some time - and perhaps longer than Lam J - in becoming familiar with the facts of the case and what the case is about.  Indeed, Miss Yuen has explained that applications which Lam J might be able to deal with very expeditiously, are likely to take two hours or more in the District Court, and matters have been transferred from the master in the District Court to the judge, but that is one of the difficulties.

5.Nevertheless, it seems to me that Lam J has considered all these factors and I do not see at the moment that there is ground for interfering with his decision that this case should be transferred to the District Court.  In so far as he has taken all the factors into account, I consider that he has done so correctly.  I therefore see that there is no alternative but to dismiss this appeal.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

6.I agree.

The Plaintiff/Applicant, in person