MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

HCMP 6331/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 6331 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 1427 OF 2001)

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

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Cheung JA: (giving the judgment of the court)

1. The plaintiff issued an action in High Court Action No. 1427 of 2001 claiming $1,112,932.96 being money had and received by the defendant. The claim consists of three sums :

(1) $537,048.48;

(2) $3,373.00; and

(3) $572,511.48

2. The plaintiff applied for judgment in default of defence against the defendant. The application was refused by the Registrar on paper. She appealed to Deputy High Court Judge Longley against the decision of the Registrar. The appeal was dismissed. She then applied to Rogers VP, being a single judge of the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal against the judge's order. It was also refused. She now renews her application for leave to appeal out of time.

3. The present action by the plaintiff is, as the Deputy Judge described, another chapter in a long saga of her battle against her father in respect of the administration of her mother's estate.

4. Her present claims had been litigated before. She was obviously under the mistaken belief that the courts had found for her favour on these sums. They did not. The defendant had in July 1997 disposed of the remaining property of the estate and paid $427,818.48 being the plaintiff's one-sixth entitlement in the estate into court. After discharging the Legal Aid charge a sum of about $335,000.00 was paid to the plaintiff on 18 September 1997.

5. The defendant on 21 April 1998 rendered the final account of the estate. The account was challenged by the plaintiff and Yeung J. on 19 August 1999 delivered judgment on the final account. The only order made was that the defendant had to pay $4,167.00 into court for the benefit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's appeal against the decision of Yeung J. had been dismissed.

6. The present action brought by the plaintiff is a repetition of her previous allegations. There is no merit in the claim and her application for leave to appeal against the judgment below is refused.