Hong Kong Housing Society and Another v. Wong Nai Chung t/a Sun Chung Flower Shop

HCMP 880/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 880 OF 2009

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 3620 OF 2007)

---------------------------------

BETWEEN

----------------------------

Before : Hon Tang VP and Yeung JA in Chambers

Date of Judgment : 22 July 2009

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

------------------------

1.On 8 May 2009, the defendant applied to this court for leave to appeal. Contrary to para. 7 of the Practice Direction 4.1, no skeleton submission was lodged. On 7 July 2009, a 33 page skeleton submission prepared by Mr Martin Lee SC and Mr Lee Siu Him was supplied. Earlier, on 22 May 2009, Mr Anderson Chow SC and Ms Queenie W.S. Ng had submitted a skeleton submission opposing leave to appeal. We understand the skeleton submission by the defendant was supplied late because permission had to be obtained for counsel to be instructed for that purpose. On 10 July 2009, Tang VP directed that the matter be heard by two judges with one day reserved.

2.On 10 July 2009, the defendant applied to this court for a stay of execution. That application was heard by us in the same afternoon. The parties were represented by the counsel named above. We have refused a stay. The reasons for our decision are handed down today.

3.Since we have had the benefit of oral submissions on 10 July 2009, we are able to decide the application for leave to appeal on paper. For the reasons given in our reasons to refuse a stay, we also refuse leave to appeal. In our opinion, the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

4.We understand that on 13 July 2009 a date has been fixed for the hearing of the application for leave to appeal on 15 December 2009. That is notwithstanding that this court was available to hear the application as early as 3 September 2009. The later date was fixed to accommodate counsel.

5.In the circumstances of this case we will not make an order on Order 59 r. 2A(8). If the defendant wishes its application to be reconsidered at an oral hearing, those representing him should inform the court, in which event, we will hear the defendant on 15 December 2009.

6.We also make an order nisi that the plaintiffs are to have the costs of this application. The defendant’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.