CHAN SHUN KEI t/a CHAN SHUN KEI CONSTRUCTION WORKS v. HONG KONG CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD (formerly known as HONG KONG CONSTRUCTION (HOLDINGS) LTD)

HCCT 2/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 2 OF 2011

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  In this case, I am not at all satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated that there are any reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal. Nor is there any other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. The plaintiff only has sought to reargue the matter of the construction of the Judgment and the costs orders. It had been given adequate opportunity to make these arguments at the hearing on 25 June 2014. The plaintiff has failed to show that I had exercised my discretion under wrong principles of law, or had taken into account irrelevant factors. There is no general practice that a judgment or order of a deputy judge MUST or should be referred back to the deputy judge for clarification or amendment. It will not be conducive to the underlying objectives of the RHC, to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as reasonably practicable, and to ensure that the resources of the court are distributed fairly, for each and every case in which an order of the deputy judge is made, to be referred back to the deputy judge, without regard to time considerations, and the substance of the alleged amendment or clarification required of the order. Nor will it be fair to the parties to the litigation, who should be entitled to expect that there should be finality of the disputes.

2.  Even if the plaintiff can show that there may be reasonable prospects, I do not consider in this case that the plaintiff should be given leave to appeal against the orders made.  As Counsel for the defendant has rightly pointed out, if the plaintiff considers that the costs order made in the Judgment was wrong, it should appeal against such order under the Judgment if the plaintiff considers and can establish that there are grounds to appeal.

3.  I am therefore not satisfied that leave should be granted and refuse the application for leave.  I will hear the parties on costs.

4.  Costs summarily assessed at $70,000.