Lee Chick Choi v. Society of Wine Educators - Hong Kong Chapter and Another

HCMP 1203/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1203 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 10 September 2013 I summarily assessed costs in this matter at $130,000 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within 28 days.

2.On 23 September 2013, the plaintiff filed a summons supported by an affirmation of the same date to seek leave to appeal against the said costs order. 

3.The affirmation filed by the plaintiff disclosed two principle proposed grounds of appeal: (1) that he would not have instituted these proceedings if his correspondence with the 2nd defendant had not been ignored; (2) that the plaintiff had proposed to take this matter to mediation, but that the defendants had refused to accept his proposal.

4.Today I have received further written submissions from Mr Lee, the plaintiff, apparently signed by him and dated by him today, being 7 October 2013.  My clerk has also been handed today written submissions from the plaintiff’s wife, Madam Lisa Yuen Oi-yee.  Although Madam Yuen is not a party to these proceedings, bearing in mind that Mr Lee is a plaintiff in person, I have looked at all the materials that he has advanced to this court.

5.The plaintiff is absent.  On 26 September 2013, this court received a letter from Mr Lee, the plaintiff, which apparently was not copied to the defendants or the defendants’ solicitors.  In that letter, Mr Lee indicated that in view of his tight schedule at work and his generally busy schedule, he would not be available to attend the hearing for the leave application on 7 October 2013. He further indicated that the earliest possible date for him to attend the hearing of his own application would be in June 2014, but that he did not mind waiting until as late as September 2014. 

6.This situation is plainly unsatisfactory.  An added curiosity is the fact that Mr Lee, as noted, served upon the court today further written submissions signed by him, although he has chosen not to attend the court himself. 

7.In all these circumstances, I have decided that I am going to proceed in the absence of the plaintiff today.  I note, however, that I have read and considered all the materials advanced to the court by the plaintiff in coming to my decision this morning.  I have, of course, also read and considered all the materials produced to the court by the defendants. 

8.Having considered all of the circumstances in this case, I find that the plaintiff’s proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.  I have also considered whether, for some other reason and in the interests of justice, the plaintiff’s application to appeal should be allowed.  I can find no reason why that should be so.

9.The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

(Discussion re costs)

10.The defendants have made an application for a summary assessment of the costs incurred in this application.  I think that it is an appropriate case for a summary assessment.  I have the benefit of a statement of costs provided by Mr Yu to the court.  I have read that statement of costs.  The total amount claimed is $33,480.  I find that the statement of costs contained therein are reasonable costs. 

11.In all the circumstances, I summarily assess the costs of this application in the sum of $30,000 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within 28 days of this order.

The plaintiff was not represented and did not appear

Mr Danny Yu, of Danny K H Yu & Co, for the 1st and 2nd defendants

Please refer to HCMP2764/2013 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.