All China Express Ltd v. See Wah Fan

HCMP 804/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 804 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2223 OF 2014)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Au J on 13 February 2015. By that decision, the learned judge dismissed the 2 summonses taken out by Ms See Wah Fan, the 4^th Defendant in HCA 2223 of 2014. The 2 summonses are:

(a)  A summons of 10 December 2014 seeking information pursuant to the Mediation Ordinance Cap 620; and

(b)  A summons of 7 January 2015 objecting under Order 20 to the Plaintiff adding claims for interest pursuant to s48 of the High Court Ordinance at paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim.

2.For the reasons given in his judgment of 13 February 2015, the judge held that the two summonses were wholly misconceived.   In respect of the summons of 10 December 2014, the judge found that there had never been any mediation and the provision in the Mediation Ordinance is not engaged.  In respect of the summons of 7 January 2015, the judge held that there had not been any amendment to pleadings and Order 20 is not engaged.

3.Ms See applied for leave to appeal out of time before the judge.  Au J refused leave on 20 March 2015. 

4.Ms See now seeks leave to appeal out of time from this court.

5.The judge has carefully explained in his judgment of 13 February 2015 why the 2 summonses were misconceived.  We are in complete agreement. 

6.There is simply no basis for suggesting that the judge’s dismissal of the summonses was wrong in principle.  Nor can we see any basis to suggest that the judge failed to take relevant consideration into account.  On the contrary, as far as we can see, the judge was plainly right. 

7.The judge has also explained with care to Ms See why her appeal is without any prospect of success.  Again we agree with him. In the papers filed by her in this application, Ms See raised many matters which have nothing to do with the 2 summonses.  This is completely futile.  A litigant cannot simply put forward whatever she wants to say without regard to the contents of her summonses and the rules and procedures of the court.  Her application is a complete waste of everyone’s time and judicial resources. 

8.We do not think the intended appeal of Ms See has any prospect of success.  There is no reason why leave to appeal out of time should be granted. We refuse to grant leave.

9.We are of the view that the application for leave is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) of The Rules of the High Court that no party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

No written submissions by Paul W Tse, for the plaintiff

The 4^th defendant, unrepresented