Pys v. Cdy

HCMP 1412 /2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1412 OF 2010

(ON AN INTENDEDAPPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 7365 OF 2007)

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

HCMP 1433/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1433 OF 2010

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2353 OF 2009)

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before: Hon Yeung JA and Saw J

Date of Hearing: 15 September 2010

Date of Judgment: 30 September 2010

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Yeung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.These are applications by Ms PYS (“Ms Park”) for leave to appeal, one relating to FCMC 7365of 2007 and the other relating to HCA 2353 of 2009. The one relating to FCMC 7365 of 2007 is seriously out of time as it concerns 69 orders made between June 2007 and June 2010.

FCMC 7365 of 2007

2.Ms Park and the respondent, Mr Chu married in July 1988 and a son was born in January 1996. Mr Chu commenced divorce proceedings in June 2007 (FCMC 7365/2007) and the final ancillary relief order was made on 6 March 2009. Judge Melloy of the Family Court was in charge of the case and in the course of the proceedings she had made many orders concerning the matrimonial assets as well as the custody and control of the son. Many of the orders were the subject matters of repeated applications and appeals by Ms Park. The appeal decisions, including those of the Court of Final Appeal, were all against her.

3.Ms Park now wishes to challenge the 69 orders of Judge Melloy on the basis that there had been criminal conspiracies between Judge Melloy and others to destroy her psychically, mentally and financially, and thus depriving her of health, beauty, wealth, talent and love. Ms Park has not raised any other arguable ground, although she does say that the legal system in Hong Kong had been bullying her.  Most of the other matters she tells us are simply not relevant to the issues that we have to resolve.

4.Quite apart from the unexplained long delay, Ms Park’s application is clearly without merits and is an abuse of the process. She simply cannot re-open issues that had been decided against her.  Her complaints against the judge are far-fetched and entirely unsubstantiated.

5.The application for leave to appeal out of time in FCMC 7365 of 2007 is dismissed.

HCA 2353 of 2009

6.Ms Park commenced the proceedings against Mr Chu in November 2009, but the action was struck out for abuse of the process of the court. On 15 July 2010, To J confirmed the decision and dismissed Ms Park’s appeal against the striking out order. Ms Park now seeks leave to appeal against To J’s decision.

7.The background and the issues of the case are clearly and succinctly set out in the judgment of To J and we do not find it necessary to repeat them.

8.Suffice it to say that the subject matters of Ms Park’s complaints, if that is a correct way to describe them, should and could have been properly dealt with in FCMC 7365 of 2007. Indeed most of the issues raised by Ms Park had been dealt with, both in FCMC 7365 of 2007 and the subsequent appeals.

9.We agree entirely with To J’s view that Ms Park’s claim is frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. The decision to strike out her claim is entirely correct.  There is no arguable ground to challenge To J’s decision.

10.Ms Park’s applications for leave to appeal in FCMC 7365/2007 and HCA 2353/2009 are both dismissed. As Mr Chu is not represented and he is not present, we make no order as to costs.

Applicant: In Person.

Respondent: In Person (Absent)