YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER

CAMP 295/2019 & CAMP 296/2019

(Heard together)

[2020] HKCA 999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 295 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2829 OF 2012)

___________________

___________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 296 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2829 OF 2012)

___________________

__________________

(Heard together)

_________________________

JUDGMENT

_________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the judgment of the court:

1.  By the judgment dated 31 August 2020[1] of this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA), the plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1^st defendant’s costs in CAMP 295/2019 and the costs of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants in CAMP 296/2019 to be summarily assessed. On 19 October 2020, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our decision[2] which summarily assessed the 1^st defendant’s costs to be paid by the plaintiff at $5,000 in CAMP 295/2019 and $2,100 in CAMP 296/2019.

2.  On 2 November 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion in each of the two actions to apply for leave to appeal the decision of 19 October 2020. 

3.  By the directions given on 2 November 2020 by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the directions in paragraph 2.1 of the Practice Direction 2.1 apply automatically.  Paragraph 3(a) of the Practice Direction requires the plaintiff to lodge and serve skeleton submissions within 14 days of the filing of the notice of motion. Despite this, the plaintiff has not lodged any written submission. 

4.  Having considered the notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the materials before us.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  

CAMP 295/2019

6.  The notice of motion filed in CAMP 295/2019 did not contain any proposed question to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.  It enclosed six letters to the court, five from the plaintiff and one from her daughter.  The notice of motion stated, in gist, that CAMP 295/2019 and CAMP 296/2019 had led to HCMP 1128/2020 and CACV 553/2020, many judges had been driven mad by the 1^st defendant but without solving the problem, and the plaintiff was forced to issue applications to appeal so that the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal could “digest” “the mentality” of the first instance judge, judges in the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court.

7.  The matters stated in the notice of motion do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  They bear no relevance to the decision in question, which is an assessment of costs.  Most importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified. There is also no basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory threshold for granting leave to appeal has not been met, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion.  Since the defendants have taken no step in the application, we make no order as to the costs of the notice of motion.

CAMP 296/2019

9.  The notice of motion filed in CAMP 296/2019 is identical to the one filed in CAMP 295/2019.

10.  For the reasons set out in [7] above, the statutory threshold for granting leave to appeal has not been met.  Accordingly, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion.  We also make no order as to the costs of the notice of motion.