CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)

HCA 1994/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1994 OF 2012

_______________

HCMP 1097/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1097 OF 2013

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1994 OF 2012)

_______________

________________________

DECISION
________________________

INTRODUCTION

1. I have before me two notices of appeal issued by the plaintiff (Mr Choy Bing Wing), one in each action.

2. In HCA 1994/2012, Master M Wong made a charging order absolute on 7 August 2015 whereby the plaintiff’s interest as the sole owner of four properties is charged with the payment of various assessed costs and interest thereon ordered to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in that action.  Master M Wong’s order forms the subject matter of the plaintiff’s notice of appeal dated 17 August 2015.

3. In HCMP 1097/2013, Master Hui made a charging order absolute on 25 September 2015 whereby the plaintiff’s interest as the sole owner of the same four properties is charged with the payment of other assessed costs and interest thereon ordered to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in that action.  Master Hui’s order forms the subject matter of the plaintiff’s notice of appeal dated 7 October 2015.

4. The plaintiff filed one set of written skeleton submission dated 13 October 2015 in support of the appeal in HCA 1994/2012.  At the hearing of the appeals on 19 October 2015, the plaintiff appeared in person and confirmed that he would rely upon the same skeleton submission in support of the appeal in HCMP 1097/2013.

5. The defendant filed two sets of skeleton submission both dated 15 October 2015, one for each appeal, but did not attend the hearing on 19 October 2015, this court having on 15 October 2015 directed that the defendant be excused from attending the hearing (if so advised).

Discussion

6. The plaintiff’s skeleton submission consists of five paragraphs.  In the first paragraph, the plaintiff states that “[t]he enforcement of court’s orders obtained by fraud by the Defendant for the concealment of a crime, perjury, may not be enforced by competent courts.”  At the hearing of the appeals, the plaintiff explained that what he meant was that the defendant falsely alleged that he (the plaintiff) had been convicted of some criminal offences and imprisoned whereas all that happened was that he had been committed for contempt of court on two occasions (in HCMP 4694/2003 and HCMP 1313/2010) for which he was sentenced to 6 months and 4 months’ imprisonment respectively.  The plaintiff said that being found guilty of contempt of court was not the same as having committed any criminal offence.  The plaintiff further said that the defendant “concealed” various judgments, including the reasons for decision given by To J in HCA 309/2014 on 29 September 2015, judgments given by Hartmann and Suffiad JJ in HCMP 4694/2003 on 25 October 2005, 7 December 2005 and 12 December 2005 respectively, and judgments given by McMahon and Macrae JJ in HCMP 1313/2010 on 7 January 2011 and 11 February 2011 respectively.

7. The plaintiff referred me to the aforesaid reasons for decision given by To J in HCA 309/2014 which stated that it was alleged, in paragraph 5 of an affirmation of Chan Chi Chiu filed on behalf of the defendant in HCA 309/2015 on 3 August 2015, that plaintiff had been sentenced to prison twice.

8. The statement that the plaintiff had been sentenced to prison twice appears to be correct as a matter of fact.  In any event, I am unable to see how the so called false allegation or concealment (even if they can be proved) has any bearing on the two charging orders absolute made by Master M Wong and Master Hui respectively.

9. In so far as the remaining four paragraphs of his skeleton submission are concerned, the plaintiff did not develop any argument in support of them at the hearing of the appeals.  In summary, they raise allegations against the conduct of a number of judicial officers which it is not necessary for me to recite in this decision.  There is simply no substance in those allegations, and they cannot possibly form any basis to challenge the two charging orders absolute made by Master M Wong and Master Hui respectively.

10. In all, I dismiss the plaintiff’s notices of appeal in the two actions with costs to the defendant.  In my view, these appeals are groundless and amount to abuse of the court’s process.  I order that the defendant’s costs are to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed.