Secretary for Justice v. Yuen Oi Yee Lisa

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 Court

Date of Judgment : 25 October 2010

Date of Corrigenda : 1 November 2010

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

CORRIGENDA

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

1.On page 4 at paragraph 8, the last sentence should read: “There can be no doubt that the respondent had been trying every means to put off the trial.”

2.On page 5 at paragraph 9, the word “sleep” in line F should read “sleepy”.

3.On page 10 at paragraph 19, line B should read: “say that the act was not contumacious in the sense that there was no”.

4.On page 11 at paragraph 24(1), the word “stuck” in line Q should read “struck”.

5.On page 12 at paragraph 25, the terms “ROP” in line F should read “RPO”.

6.On page 14 at paragraph 32, line P the words “The Bank of East of Asia” should read “The Bank of East Asia”.

7.On page 15 at paragraph 33, the second last sentence should read: “As directed, the Registrar of High Court furnished a report to Lam J on 30 November 2007.”

8.On page 21 at paragraph 48, line B should read: “written and sent before the respondent was served with the 14/4/2008”.

9.On page 22,

(a) at paragraph 51, the first line should read: “Allegation A is for breach of paragraph 1 of the 8/8/2007”.

(b) at paragraph 52(1), line N should read: “breach of paragraph 1 of the 8/8/2007 Order because it did not”.

10.On page 23 at paragraph 53, line I should read: “that a sealed copy of the 8/8/2007 Order had been served on the respondent”.

11.On page 24 at paragraph 57, the terms “TL” in the first sentence should read “TC”.

12.On page 31 at paragraph 69, line N should read: “she was given time to do so.  The BR record of David & Goliath was”.

13.On page 37,

(a) at paragraph 80, line N should read: “imposed on her: see MSA v. London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC”.

(b) at paragraph 81, line S should read: “and she would not make telephone calls to the clerk to Lam J for whatever”.

14.On page 38 at paragraph 82, the fourth sentence should read: “The evidence does not establish that the process server of ML’s solicitors had personally served on the respondent the order dated 3 December 2007 that embodied the Undertaking and was endorsed with a penal notice.”

15.On page 46 at paragraph 104, the second sentence should read: “She explained in her affirmation that they were all made for the purpose of HCA 2107/2006 and HCB 9860/2007.”

16.On page 47,

(a) at paragraph 107, the first sentence should read: “The telephone voice recordings left by the respondent had caused nuisance and harassment to the clerk to Lam J and had interfered with the proper discharge of her duties.”

(b) the heading before paragraph 108 should read: “Allegation G: Deceptive and misleading means in seeking to commence HCB9860/2007”.

17.On page 48 at paragraph 109, the second sentence should read: “It is not very clear what sort of leave was being referred to, whether the respondent was talking about RPO leave or leave from the bankruptcy master to issue bankruptcy petition.”

18.On page 49,

(a) at paragraph 111, the word “secretary” in line C should read “Secretary”.

(b) at paragraph 112, the word “he” in line K should read “her”.

(c) at paragraph 113, the case no. in line T should read “HCB9860/2007”.

19.On page 50 at paragraph 114, the reference to “2006” in line E should read “2007”.

20.On page 53 at paragraph 124, line H should read: “am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct and abuse of”.