Secretary for Justice v. Yuen Oi Yee Lisa
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2390/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 September 2010.
1. On 16 September 2010, I heard and dismissed with costs the summons issued by the respondent on 9 September 2010, and also refused her oral application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I now reduce my oral reasons into writing.
|
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 Chu J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 16 September 2010 Date of Decision : 16 September 2010 Date of Reasons for Decision: 17 September 2010 ------------------------------------------ REASONS FOR DECISION ------------------------------------------ 1.On 16 September 2010, I heard and dismissed with costs the summons issued by the respondent on 9 September 2010, and also refused her oral application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I now reduce my oral reasons into writing. The summons dated 9 September 2010 2.The summons is completely out of the order. The relief sought is not known to law and the application is misconceived. The subject matter has no relevance at all to the issues in these committal proceedings. There is no basis whatsoever for such application to be made by way of interlocutory application in these proceedings. The respondent’s affirmations filed for the purpose of the summons and the exhibits thereto are abusive. This is a clear instance of a misuse and abuse of court process in general and these proceedings in particular. The summons must be dismissed. 3.On the costs of the summons, the respondent did not contest that the rule of costs follow event should apply. She however argued that there should not be summary assessment of costs, saying that this was not the course adopted for her previous failed applications. In my view, summary assessment of costs in this instance is both appropriate and necessary. This is because it is a short application involving two affirmations. Further, there have been far too many unmeritorious and groundless interlocutory applications by the respondent. Application for leave to appeal 4.In respect of the oral application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of the summons, the respondent said it was because of this case that she came to know about this – meaning her present application. I am unable to comprehend what she was contending. The respondent also said her summons was closely connected to these committal proceedings because her application rose out of the hearing on 9 September 2010, in which something defamatory was said about her. She referred to a letter dated 10 September 2010 she wrote to Clerk to Mr Justice Cheung (exhibit 1to her affirmation dated 15 September 2010) as elaboration of her contention. The contents of the letter are incomprehensible and I am unable to see the relevance of the letter and the basis for the summons. 5.The respondent fails to show any arguable ground of appeal. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
Mr Eric Ko, Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice for the applicant. The respondent, unrepresented, appeared in person. |
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2390/2008