Dbs Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Si, Echinacea

HCA1602/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1602 OF 2009

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

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

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 9 June 2010

Date of Decision : 9 June 2010

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.This matter has been placed before me as there has been a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant about the fixing of the date for the adjourned hearing of the plaintiff’s summons for the interlocutory injunction.

2.As part of this dispute the defendant has issued a summons dated 25 May 2010 whereby the defendant asks for an order that

(a)   she objects to changing a new judge; and

(b)  to set down the hearing for the injunction.

3.The plaintiff’s summons is for the continuation of an ex-parte injunction.  The substantive hearing was adjourned on the defendant’s application.  By my order made on 23 September 2009 it was ordered that the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons filed on 17 July 2009 be adjourned to a date to be fixed with half a day reserved such date not to be fixed before the determination of the defendant’s summons dated 24 August 2009 for discovery and provision of the CCTV recording.

4.The defendant appears to be under a misapprehension that I directed that the summons be adjourned to be fixed before me and she objects to a change of a judge for the adjourned hearing.  As I have tried to explain to the defendant the hearing was adjourned not to any particular judge so that the Clerk of the Court can fix it before any judge.  The defendant, however, has asked for me to be the judge to deal with the adjourned hearing whereas the defendant has asked for the matter to be heard before a bilingual judge. 

5.It should be borne in mind that a litigant cannot pick any particular judge that it wishes to hear any particular application.  The question of fixing a date is left to the Clerk of the Court. 

6.There is much merit in the application for the matter to be heard before a bilingual judge. 

7.Although the defendant seeks to dispute the accuracy of the order of Master Ko made on 6 January 2010, it appears from the order that has been filed and entered that on the application of the defendant Master Ko ordered Chinese translation of documents to be provided by the plaintiff as set out in the order.  He also ordered that from the date of that order each document filed and served in relation to these proceedings shall be written in Chinese. 

8.As set out in the 2^nd affirmation of Tam Chi Keung, in particular paragraph 12, it appears that documents have been filed in Chinese since the order of Master Ko.  There have also been proceedings before masters and To J which have been conducted in Chinese. 

9.It seems to me that for the purpose of saving costs and time it is highly desirable that this matter be dealt with by a bilingual judge.  This would save the parties’ costs in translating documents which have been filed in Chinese back into English.  For that reason I direct that the adjourned hearing of the plaintiff’s inter partes summons filed on 17 July 2009 be fixed before a bilingual judge with an estimated length of 3 hours in consultation with counsel’s diaries.  However, at the defendant’s request, I would direct that the hearing should not be heard before 29 September 2010.  This is to give the defendant further time after the hearing before Master Hui on 29 July 2010 as requested by the defendant.

Mr Derick Tam, of Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the Plaintiff

Defendant, in person, present