Lau Kwok Ching also known as Wayne Lau v. Best Joint Investments Ltd and Another

HCA 2602/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2602 OF 2007

____________

Before: Hon Chung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 6 December 2011

Date of Handing Down Further Decision: 15 December 2011

___________________

FURTHER DECISION

____________________

1.A decision was handed down on 12 December 2011 (“the above written decision”):-

(a) dismissing the plaintiff’s authority summons;

(b) granting the defendants’ striking out application.

(both terms, and other terms appearing below, have been defined in the above written decision)

2.Two days after the giving of the notice to hand down, Wayne Lau’s solicitors wrote to the court on Friday 9 December 2011(received by the court at around 4:45pm) (“the letter”).  The relevant part of the letter reads:-

“We have just received instructions from [Wayne Lau] … that … the 2nd Defendant in a previous High Court Action [A2608] … had appointed a forensic handwriting expert … to examine and make a report on the alleged forged or disputed signatures of the Plaintiff [of A2608] on several contemporaneous documents referred to in [A2608] … ”.

The 1^st defendant of A2608 was in effect the alter ego of Ron Lau: para. 5, court of appeal’s judgment dated 23 August 2011 in CACV 417/2007.

3.The background leading to the said applications, and the reasons for the above written decision, have been set out therein.

4.The said applications were heard on 6 December 2011.  Notice to Hand Down the above written decision was given on 7 December 2011 (two days before the letter).

5.The authenticity of the documents set out in the letter was an important issue in A2608.  That issue has been resolved against the defence:-

(1) by the Court of First Instance in my decision handed down on 13 December 2007;

(2) by the Court of Appeal in a judgment handed down on 23 August 2011.

6.By another letter dated Monday 12 December 2011, Wayne Lau’s solicitors enclosed an affirmation of the 2^nd defendant of A2608 and the actual hand-writing report.

7.As has been determined in the above written decision, Wayne Lau is no more than Ron Lau’s nominee.  Such being the case, an attempt by him to raise that issue again when the same has already been determined against his principal is an abuse of the process of the court.

8.For that reason, if an application in the terms set out in the letter had been made on 6 December 2011, it would have been refused.

9.Accordingly, after having considered the above, I decided to maintain:-

(a) the direction to hand down the above written decision;

(b) the conclusion reached in the above written decision.

10.The matters below are unnecessary for present purposes but are set out for completeness.  The letters show that Wayne Lau has been able to give speedy instructions to his solicitors despite his absence from Hong Kong (contrary to one of the submissions implicitly made to the court on 6 December 2011: para. 4(5) and 4(6), Wayne Lau’s written submissions dated 5 December 2011).  Secondly, this action was commenced in 2007, and both decisions in A2608 have been handed down quite some time ago (see para. 5 above).  No satisfactory reason has been proffered regarding why the new instructions were only given shortly before the letter.

Mr Jose Remedios, instructed by Messrs John Ip & Co., for the Plaintiff

Mr Isaac Chan, instructed by Messrs Tung, Ng, Tse & Heung, for the Defendants