All China Express Ltd v. Kwok Cheuk Kin and Others

HCA 2223/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2223 OF 2014

------------------------

------------------------

------------------------

D E C I S I O N

------------------------

1.On 13 February 2015, I handed down decision (“Decision”) dismissing the 4^th defendant’s Mediation Information Summons and the Amendment Opposing Summons with costs.

2.This is now the 4^th defendant’s application for leave to appeal the Decision to the Court of Appeal.  This decision should be read together with the Decision.

3.Leave should only be granted if the 4^th defendant’s intended grounds of appeal have a reasonable prospect of success or that the interest of justice demands that the appeal shall be heard: see s 14AA(4) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4).

4.In support of her leave application, the various proposed grounds of appeal that can be gathered from the 4^th defendant’s skeleton and her 5^th affirmation (and as further advanced at the hearing) are in effect the 4^th defendant’s submissions and complaints that:

(1) The plaintiff’s claims for damages and injunction are not supported by the evidence (including the consolidated accounts, but not individual company’s accounts, provided by the plaintiff) coupled with the alleged plaintiff’s refusal or failure to provide further evidence as requested;

(2) The plaintiff has been making misleading or misrepresenting statements in support of the claims;

(3) The plaintiff as a limited company cannot be properly prosecuted for any criminal liability for making allegedly those false statements, evidence or claims;

(4) The 4^th defendant has a duty to advance justice in such a case and thus to pursue after the plaintiff for proper information and evidence; and

(5) In any event, mediation (even if not commenced yet) in these proceedings could be started at any time.

5.In my view, none of the above grounds are relevant to the question as to why this court’s reasons (as set out in the Decision) to dismiss the 2 summonses are wrong.

6.As I observed at paragraphs 17-18 of the Decision, the 4^th defendants’ above “complaints” are matters that she may well want to rely on in defence of the claims, as when the proceedings proceed.  But they are not grounds that can support the 2 summonses.  They therefore do not have a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal.  Nor could I see how these “complaints” render it just and necessary to give leave to appeal.

7.I will therefore refuse to grant leave to appeal.

8.There are no reasons why costs should not follow the event.  I thus also order that costs of this application be to the plaintiff to be paid forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Lau Pak Wai, of Paul W Tse, for the plaintiff

The 4^th defendant appeared in person