Secretary for Justice v. Yuen Oi Yee Lisa also known as Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee, Elizabeth Lee, Ar Foon and Wang Kai Chi
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2390/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 December 2009.
1. The respondent applied by summons for certain orders. On top of that she applied by another summons today for an order that I should discharge myself from hearing this case. What I gather from her statement dated 4 December 2009 is that the Hon Mr Justice Fung is more familiar with the present case and therefore this case should pass to His Lordship. Some of the points put forward by the respondent are not quite comprehensible.
|
HCMP2390/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2390 OF 2008 ---------------------------
--------------------------- BETWEEN
--------------------------- Before : Hon Yam J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 7 December 2009 Date of Handing Down Decision : 15 December 2009 -------------------------- D E C I S I O N --------------------------- 1.The respondent applied by summons for certain orders. On top of that she applied by another summons today for an order that I should discharge myself from hearing this case. What I gather from her statement dated 4 December 2009 is that the Hon Mr Justice Fung is more familiar with the present case and therefore this case should pass to His Lordship. Some of the points put forward by the respondent are not quite comprehensible. 2.In any event from what she has written in her statement, there is no acceptable ground for me to discharge myself from hearing the present case. 3.This summons is therefore dismissed. 4.In the main summons the respondent asked for the following 2 orders, namely that :
5.In the first order sought, the respondent questioned the role of the applicant or of a senior government counsel in the report about the suspected criminal intimidation case against the respondent in respect of the letters sent by the respondent in January 2009. However this is not relevant to the present contempt proceedings which was instituted back in 2008. 6.The respondent alleged that the reporting of the suspected criminal intimidation arose because of a personal grudge on the part of a senior government counsel. This is vexatious and frivolous. The applicant has repeatedly written to the respondent explaining that it would not be necessary or appropriate to respond to her questions raised, which are not the subject matter of the contempt proceedings. 7.Further it is not clear under what Rules of the High Court the respondent made her application. It may be similar to an interrogatory for discovery of facts. 8.However interrogatories without order shall not be served on the Government and leave is required before the respondent can administer interrogatories on the applicant. 9.Those interrogatories should not be granted as :
10.Accordingly, the first order sought is refused. 11.In the second order sought in this summons, I take it that the respondent is requesting for a tape recording or transcript of another proceedings in HCA1974/2007. 12.However such an application was made to the court hearing HCA1974/2007 and the applicant has accordingly advised her of the same. 13.In this respect according to the respondent, the Hon Mr Justice Lam directed on 17 November 2009 that the police may have access to such tapes. Accordingly Registrar Au-Yeung and the Hon High Court Chief Judge Ma replied to the respondent in their letters both dated 25 November 2009 that the respondent should abide by the direction of the Hon Mr Justice Lam. 14.By reasons of the aforesaid matter, the respondent’s application for an order directing the applicant to produce the tape recording (or transcript) should be dismissed. 15.Upon the dismissal of the respondent’s summonses, the applicant shall have costs of the applications of the respondent.
Mr Eric Ko, of the Department of Justice, for the Applicant The Respondent, in person, present |
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2390/2008