Yung Mei Chun v. Chan Sing Chuen

HCMP 352/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 352 OF 2010

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 4126 OF 2007 and DCCJ NO. 15756 OF 2000)

______________

BETWEEN

______________

Before: Hon Tang VP and Kwan JA in Chambers

Date of Decision: 26 March 2010

_______________

DECISION

_______________

1.This application arose out of the judgment of District Judge Lok given on 11 June 2009 in DCCJ 4126 of 2007, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim with costs. In HCMP 1178/2009, the plaintiff applied to this court for leave to appeal against the judgment of 11 June 2009. By our judgment of 4 September 2009, we refused leave to appeal. We made an order under O. 59 r. 2A(8) so that the plaintiff could not apply under r. 2A(7) to the court to reconsider the application at oral hearing inter partes.

2.However, without disclosing the proceedings of HCMP 1178/2009 to the court, the plaintiff applied to Judge Lok to set aside the order of 11 June 2009 as well as for leave to appeal from that order. In the judgment handed down on 29 October 2009, Judge Lok dismissed the plaintiff’s application with costs. We would not repeat what Judge Lok has said. On 10 February 2010, Judge Lok refused leave to the plaintiff to appeal.

3.By summons dated 24 February 2010, the plaintiff asked for leave to appeal against the order of Judge Lok given on 10 February 2010. For the reasons given in the judgment of 4 September 2009 as well as the reasons given by Judge Lok in his judgment of 29 October 2009, it is obvious that this application is an abuse of process. It is accordingly dismissed. We also make an order under O. 59 r. 2A para. 8, that the plaintiff may not apply under para. 7 of O. 59 r. 2A to request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

4.The plaintiff has requested that this summons be heard by judges other than Tang VP, Yeung JA, Cheung JA and Yuen JA because she is appealing their decisions. That is not a good reason for judges to recuse themselves.