|
HCMP 2433/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2433 OF 2012
____________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of an application for leave under Section 168BC of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 32)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of intended statutory derivative actions
|
____________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
CHEUNG HING |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LIMITED |
Defendant |
|
and
|
| |
WONG CHOR CHEUNG |
Intervener |
____________________
| Before: Hon G Lam J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 5 July 2017 |
| Date of Judgment: 5 July 2017 |
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
1. This is a restored hearing of the intervener’s application for leave to appeal against my assessment of costs dated 2 September 2016.
2. Although the matter was set down for one hour, no hearing bundle, skeleton argument or note of the intervener’s position or submissions had been lodged with the court.
3. Mr Chan, of the firm of solicitors on record for the intervener, has appeared this morning, and placed before me a letter from his firm to my clerk, dated yesterday, but which was only received this morning.
4. In the letter and in his oral explanation, it was indicated that the intervener was initially minded to engage counsel to appear at this hearing, but changed his mind and decided at the last minute to act in person. This was only indicated to his solicitors yesterday.
5. Further, the intervener is currently in Mainland China, and therefore unable to file any notice to act in person, or appear in court today. Copies of two train tickets were attached to the letter, showing that the intervener had departed from Guangzhou for another province yesterday, and is due to return to Guangzhou tomorrow. The solicitors’ firm had not been given any costs on account, and only had limited instructions to attend the hearing to seek an adjournment for two weeks.
6. Mr Chan also indicated that if an adjournment was not granted, his firm had no further instructions to take any steps.
7. On established principles, I do not think there is any ground to adjourn this matter. The hearing date was fixed back in March, and has therefore been long known to the intervener. He should have made preparations for it, and not sought an adjournment at the hearing itself.
8. Without making any criticism of the solicitors, it seems to me that the reasons given on behalf of the intervener are far from adequate to justify an adjournment. He has chosen not to instruct legal representatives, not to take steps to act in person in advance, not to attend the hearing today, and not even to be present in Hong Kong at the time of this hearing.
9. Also, it has transpired that, inexplicably, the plaintiff has still not been paid the costs awarded, even though there has been no order for stay of execution of the costs order.
10. In these circumstances, I refuse the adjournment and, there being no one to pursue the application for leave, the summons is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff.
(Discussion re costs)
11. The costs are summarily assessed in the sum of HK$400.
| |
(Godfrey Lam)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Plaintiff appeared in person
Mr Alvin Chan, of W K To & Co, for the intervener
|