LAM PING v. LAM MAN KAI

DCCJ5522/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5522 OF 2002

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

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

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

R U L I N G

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

1.  For the purpose of the record, I have provided three authorities to the plaintiff to consider.  The first one was Mullen v Canoco Limited [1998] QB 382, an English Court of Appeal decision.  The second case was decided by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in the decision of Lui Sik Kuen v Lee Suk Ling [1992] HKLR 371.  The last case that I provided to the plaintiff’s solicitor was the Privy Council decision of de Lasala v de Lasala [1980] AC 546.  It is the plaintiff’s submission that in any event, this court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with Madam Zhao’s appeal and her application to intervene in the present District Court suit.

2.  Today, Madam Zhao, the appellant, did not appear.  On the basis of the plaintiff’s application to dismiss the appeal under Order 32, Rule 5 of the Rules of the District Court, I grant the following orders, namely:

                   (1) The appeal of Madam Zhao be dismissed as she was absent at the hearing of her appeal.

                   (2) Costs of the appeal and today’s hearing be to the plaintiff and be paid by Madam Zhao, such costs to be taxed if not agreed by a District Court master.