Choy Bing Wing v. Building Authority of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2458/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 November 2011.
1. This is Mr Choy’s application for leave to appeal against my decision dated 4 October 2011.
Cited by 6 cases
|
HCA2458/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2458 OF 2007 ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Au-Yeung in Chambers Date of Hearing: 15 November 2011 Date of Decision: 15 November 2011 ____________________ D E C I S I O N ____________________ 1.This is Mr Choy’s application for leave to appeal against my decision dated 4 October 2011. 2.Mr Choy appeared this morning and asked me whether I had answered his letter dated 7 November 2011. In substance, the background of this matter was a request for transcripts. As will be revealed in the reasons for dismissing the leave application below, I had in fact answered Mr Choy’s previous request for transcripts, but I had not answered his letter dated 7 November 2011 because I considered that letter as abusive in nature. 3.Without hearing further from me, Mr Choy walked out of court at about 10:09 am and did not pursue his application for leave to appeal. 4.In the premises, that application ought to be dismissed outright. However, to put the record absolutely straight, I would deal briefly with that leave application. Background 5.On 21 November 2007 the Plaintiff, Mr Choy, issued the writ against the 1st to 3rd Defendants, amongst other defendants. On 7 January 2008 the action was discontinued, and I gave leave, as Registrar. It was ordered that the costs of the action be paid by Mr Choy to the three Defendants now before this court to be taxed if not agreed. The costs of the first three Defendants represented by the Department of Justice were taxed at $61,566 under an allocatur dated 18 February 2009. 6.By an order dated 26 July 2011 Master Ho imposed a charging order absolute on Mr Choy’s property in Queens Road West based on the allocatur. Mr Choy’s appeal against the charging order absolute was dismissed by me on 4 October 2011. 7.Mr Choy seeks leave to appeal against my decision. In seeking leave to appeal, it is up to Mr Choy to satisfy this court that his appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other reason in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard. In his summons, Mr Choy set out the following grounds of appeal:
8.Insofar as the first ground of appeal is concerned, it is not clear to which set of transcripts or tape records Mr Choy was referring to. If Mr Choy was referring to the transcript of the proceedings before Master Ho, I have dealt with Mr Choy’s request. On 22 September 2011 Mr Choy, by letter, asked me to order Master Ho to release papers, tapes and transcripts unconditionally for exposure of his bias. Through my clerk and by a letter dated 26 September, I replied as follows:
9.As for the papers for assessment of costs, if Mr Choy is referring to the documents which Master Ho has ruled to be privileged, then this is a matter that should not be dealt with by correspondence, but, if appropriate, by appeal. 10.As matters turned out, on the day of hearing of the appeal against Master Ho’s order, Mr Choy walked out without pursuing his appeal. 11.Next, if Mr Choy’s request for transcripts concerned the hearing before me on 4 October, again, I have dealt with his request. By my clerk’s letter dated 6 October 2011, I have replied, stating that the transcript of reasons are to be given free of charge. If Mr Choy wanted a transcript and tape, he should undertake to pay fees. 12.As it turned out, Mr Choy never undertook to pay fees, and so the transcript was not provided to him. 13.The reasons for my decision dated 4 October 2011 had been delivered to Mr Choy on or about 20 October 2011. 14.Subsequent to the reply letter of my clerk dated 6 October, Mr Choy wrote to me yet again, making certain complaints and also asking me to issue the transcripts and tapes free of charge for his onward submission to the Chief Executive. By my clerk’s letter dated 10 October 2011, I replied to Mr Choy, stating that I have given directions as per my letter dated 6 October 2011. Those directions stood. Again, Mr Choy did not undertake to pay for the fees of the transcript. 15.In the premises, I cannot see why Mr Choy can complain that I refused to release the transcripts. The first ground of appeal cannot stand. 16.In relation to the second ground of appeal, this effectively had been dealt with in my reasons for decision dated 4 October 2011. There is nothing from Mr Choy to suggest that I have misapplied any legal principles. To put the matter straight, if Mr Choy had been put in gaol, that was not a matter dealt with by me. The contempt proceedings which formed the basis of his gaol sentence were not handled by me. The second ground of appeal cannot stand. 17.In relation to the third ground of appeal, the charging order absolute was made by Master Ho based on material before him. Mr Choy had lodged an appeal, but did not pursue it on 4 October. He walked out in the middle of his application for my recusal. He has not shown cause as to why my decision on 4 October was erroneous as a matter of law, nor could he show in what way Master Ho had wrongly exercised his discretion in granting that charging order absolute. The third ground of appeal cannot stand. 18.In summary, it has not been demonstrated that Mr Choy’s intended appeal has any reasonable prospect of success or that there is any reason in the interest of justice to justify his appeal to the Court of Appeal. 19.I therefore dismiss Mr Choy’s application. (Submission re costs) 20.Costs be to the 1st to 3rd Defendants, summarily assessed and allowed at $8,604.
Plaintiff appearing in person Mr Mark Chan, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the 1st to 3rd Defendants |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2458/2007