Edward Yeung Certified Public Accountant (Yeung Edward) v. The Registrar of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants / The Practice Review Committee of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants

HCA 948/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 948 OF 2011

___________________________________

BETWEEN

___________________________________

Before : Mr. Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing : 11 July 2011

Date of Reasons for Decision: 11 July 2011

___________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

___________________________________

1.This morning this court has yet to deal with a fresh writ action namely HCA 948/2011, taken out by the plaintiff Yeung Kwong Tat Edward, the same plaintiff in Yeung, Kwong Tat Edward v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited HCA 1628/2010 and other 20 cases viz HCA 1655-1659/2010, HCA 1668-1675/2010, HCA 1677/2010, HCA 1680/2010 and HCA 1691-1695/2010, all of which I had struck out on 25^th November 2010, exercising my powers under Order 1B and Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court. See the Reasons for Decision delivered on 25^th November 2010.

2.In the indorsement of the writ, the plaintiff had set out the claims as follows:-

“O.6, r.2c: CPA Members’ Remedy due to Edward Yeung CPA and third person HK citizen:

The Plaintiff’s claim (and defence) to payment out forewith is money due and owning over Admissions Against Edward Yeung CPA and third persons Interest (civil, economic and political rights in the takings and in the civil money harassment) in a punitive sum of HK$6.6M per annum and 5 years forewith. The Defendants(s) [do] pay the Plaintiff and third person HK citizen herein.

Leave to no Exparte HKICPA Registrar by Johnny Chan dated May 18, 2011 motion is dealt with/entertained.

Costs ni si.”

3.The indorsement is incomprehensible. I take the view that on the contents above, even though the defendant does not file any defence, the court should not enter judgment in default in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to Order 19 of the Rules of the High Court.

4.I therefore decided that, in order to give effect to the objectives under Order 1A of the Rules of the High Court, in particular, rule 1(a) (b) and (d)[1], by exercising the power under Order 1B rule 1(2)(c) and (k)[2] and under Order 18 rule 19[3] of the Rules of the High Court, the plaintiff should be called upon to attend at a hearing to show cause why his writ should not be struck out and his action be dismissed.

5.By a letter dated 4 July 2011, I called upon the plaintiff to attend the hearing today for the above purpose, with copy to the defendant stating that its attendance for this hearing is not required. But it is entitled to attend this hearing.

6.The hearing is scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m.. I have waited until 10:20 a.m.. But the plaintiff is still absent. I therefore proceed to deal with this matter in the absence of the plaintiff. No one from the defendant attends this hearing.

7.I bear in mind the legal principle set out by the Court of Appeal in Ha Francesca v Tsai Kui Kan [1982] HKC 382, which other courts follow, that it is only plain and clear case that there is no reasonable cause of action that the court will strike out the claim. The fact that the contents of the indorsement as shown above are not comprehensible is clear indication that the plaintiff has not shown any reasonable cause of action against the defendant.

8.According to the decision of the Court of First Instance in Lai M Ma v Tang Yin Lin HCA 448/2010, Chu J. held that if the plaintiff has shown no reasonable cause of action, the court can refuse to enter judgment even if the defendant has failed to file the defence. The court has the jurisdiction to, on its own motion, strike out the plaintiff’s pleading or writ under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court.

9.Since the plaintiff has failed to appear before me today to show cause why his writ should not be struck out and based upon the fact that the indorsement on the writ has disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendant, I decide to exercise my powers under Order 1B and Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court to strike out the indorsement of writ and dismiss the action and so I now do with costs to the defendant, to be assessed if not agreed.

10.I now make the order in terms of the following:-

(i)  The indorsement of the writ be struck out;

(ii)  The Action be dismissed;

(iii)  to be assessed summarily, if not agreed.

Representation:

Plaintiff in person, absent