Leung Kit Hing, Doris v. Cho Sik Han Yvette and Another

CACV 67/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1455 OF 2010)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu JA and Poon J in Court

Date of Decision: 27 November 2014

_____________

DECISION

_____________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Decision of the Court):

1.The court gave directions on 4 November 2014 for the disposal of the Applicant’s summons of 31 October 2014.

2.In a letter of 7 November 2014, the Applicant indicated that she would apply for the withdrawal of the summons within the following week. 

3.The Applicant did not take step to withdraw the summons. 

4.We reiterate that the summons is an abuse of process and we now strike out the summons.

5.The Applicant has exhibited the habit of filing voluminous documents and writing letters to the court seeking to re-open issues which had been decided against her.  This has led to substantial waste of judicial resources which should have been utilised for other cases.

6.The other outstanding application (apart from the substantive appeal) before this court is the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The Applicant applied by a Notice of Motion of 31 October 2014 for leave to appeal against the decisions of this court on 18 September 2014 and 17 October 2014.  

7.Those decisions were:

(a) 18 September: adding the two administratrices as parties to this appeal and directions for service of the papers on them; and

(b) 17 October: refusal to re-open the above decision.

8.Those decisions were interlocutory in nature.  As such, leave to appeal should not be granted as of right.   Neither does the intended appeal raise any question of great general or public importance.  The Applicant actually intimated that she agreed to have the administratrices to be joined as parties and she had served the papers on them.   It seems to us that the intended appeal does not serve any useful purpose.

9.We therefore dismiss the Notice of Motion of 31 October 2014.

10.As regards the substantive appeal in CACV 67 of 2013, Lam VP had already given direction on 12 November 2014 for the fixing of the date for hearing.  The Applicant however wrote letters to “the Court of Civil Appeal” on 13 and 14 November 2014 seeking clarifications pending the fixing of hearing date.  She also asked for stay of execution.

11.There is nothing to be stayed as she had agreed in her letter of 7 November 2014 that the grantees should be parties to the appeal.  She also said she had complied with our directions for service of the papers on the grantees and filed an affidavit of service to such effect.  We see no basis for not proceeding with the fixing of date for the substantive appeal.  

12.She also filed a Notice of Intended Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on 17 November 2014 in respect of the decisions of this court on 18 September, reasons for decision of 20 October 2014 and the direction of 12 November 2014. 

13.These applications are dismissed together with the Notice of Motion of 31 October 2014. 

14.In the meantime, the Listing Officer shall proceed to fix a date for the substantive appeal in accordance with the direction of 12 November 2014.

15.In view of the vexatious conducts of the Applicant, we are not minded to entertain her further by way of correspondence.  Her future letters to the court will not be read by us. 

16.From now on, she should concentrate on the substantive appeal.  If she persists in making further interlocutory applications, we shall have no alternative but to make a Restricted Application Order against her.

The Applicant unrepresented