XCHRX KWOK YING LUNG v. KO CHI HUNG AND ANOTHER

HCMP209/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.209 OF 1999

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1. I have listened to the recording of the proceedings during the lunch time. It was not possible for me to ascertain from the recording that counsel had actually said the words "by consent" in relation to the direction on the hearing by the master because the recording was not complete. This is probably due to problem in the loading of the CD when the recording system was changed in the courts. I am, however, of the view that the direction was given by consent of the parties for these reasons. After the originating summons was issued, the parties first attended before Master Muttrie from whose order the appeal was made to me. The parties obviously wished the master to deal with the matter in the first place. When I gave the oral decision setting aside the Master's order, I had expressly stated that direction should be given and the matter should be adjourned for argument and that the deponents of the affidavits be tendered for cross-examination at the adjourned hearing. This reference to the adjournment must be a reference to the adjournment before the master. According to the endorsement made by my clerk of the hearing, counsel for the parties then dealt with the question of affidavits, date of hearing and cross-examination of the deponents. Then I gave the orders and directions. In my view, irrespective of whether counsel had said the words "by consent" or not, the order directing the hearing by master must have been made by the consent of the parties. Accordingly, I shall amend the order by inserting the word "by consent" to paragraph 2.