Yuen Chuk Kwan and Others v. Wong Yi Lin

CACV000104/1983

BETWEEN

-------

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Cons & Fuad, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 8th November 1983

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. We have, in the Full Court of Hong Kong and also, since it was created, in the Court of Appeal, for many years had cause to complain about the documents placed before the court on appeals.

2. In the present case we have such cause again. The papers were not filed, in accordance with 0.59 r.9, seven days before the hearing of the appeal. I received the bundle of papers just before lunch time on Saturday. On Sunday I read these papers - or such as were possible to be read - and discovered that the rules of court had been completely ignored. The documents were in the wrong order, many were irrelevant and many were quite illegible. First thing yesterday morning I directed that the bundle be returned to the solicitors to be put in order. We have received another bundle. The bundle is still not in order and, had this matter been proceeded with, we might very well have refused to proceed today, have ordered an adjournment and, subject to hearing the solicitors, have ordered that the solicitors pay all the costs thrown away.

3. 0.59 r.9 lays down the time for filing of documents and the order in which the documents ought to appear.  It also indicates that only relevant documents ought to be included.  0.66 makes it abundantly clear that all documents included must be legible, whether they are typed or whether they are photostat copies. Any type used in producing a document for use in the court must be such as to give a clear and legible impression. Any document produced by a photographic or similar process "giving a positive and permanent representation free from blemishes" may be treated the purposes of the rules as though it were printed, written or typewritten. Photostat copies which are not a positive and permanent representation free from blemishes do not comply with the rules. We, therefore, give warning that if we receive further bundles of this kind, we shall consider very seriously whether to adjourn any appeal in which the documents have been produced and direct that any costs thrown away shall be paid personally by the solicitors.

8th November 1983.