BabelCite

Re Chang Chu Hung

Case No.HCMP 86/1972
Court
High Court CFI
Date01 Jan 1900
Judge—
Case Document
100%

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 86 OF 1972

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

 

IN THE MATTER of Applications by CHANG CHU HUNG of 75Ho Pui Street, 4th floor, Tsuen Wan in the New Territories of the Colony of Hong Kong, TANG FAT KIN of 15 Hack Po Street, 4th floor, Mongkok, Kowloon inthe said Colony and CHIU YAT SUI of 460 Sai Yung Choi Street, 4th floor, Kowloon aforesaid for leave to apply for an Order of Prohibition

and

IN THE MATTER of the Road Traffic Ordinance

and

IN THE MATTER of the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations 1956

and

IN THE MATTER of a Proposed Revocation by the Commissioner for Transport of drivers Driving Instructors Licences

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

Coram : Blair-Kerr, S.P.J. and Huggins, J.

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

Huggins, J.:

1. It has been reported to us that great inconvenience has been caused in this and, recently, in another case because an officer in the Registry refused to accept documents which he thought were incorrectly entitled. It is, of course, very proper that errors or suspected errors should be drawn to the attention of parties or their solicitors when documents are brought for filing but, if a document is of a class which may lawfully be filed, officers in the Registry have no authority to refuse to accept them. The contents of any document are the responsibility of the person tendering it and we are told that in the particular cases now in question counsel deliberately drafted the documents in the form in which they were tendered and was fully prepared to argue in this Court that they were in proper form. In the event he has had to come before the Court relying on documents which in his view (right or wrong) are not in proper form. In one case the application has been ex parte and in the other the opposite party took no point on the form of the proceedings, but great injustice might be done by the rejection of a document which was in fact unobjectionable. Where a suspected error has been pointed out and not corrected it is, however, quite proper that the officer should draw the attention of the Clerk of the Court to it so that he may ensure the matter is not overlooked by the court.