LIE HAN JI v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITIUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

CACV 265/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2009

(On appeal from the Decisions of the Disciplinary Committee

of the HKICPA dated 20 October 2009 and 13 March 2010)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  This is an application by the applicant by way of summons dated 13 February 2014 to :

(a) set aside my order dated 7 October 2013;

(b) set aside my order dated 30 January 2014; and

(c) various other matters.

2.  In support of this application, the applicant filed and served an affirmation dated 13 February 2014.

3.  The background of this case has been fully set out in my written decision dated 7 October 2013, and I do not want to repeat the same here.

4.  First, this court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 7 October 2013.  If the applicant seeks to set aside this order, the only way is to appeal against such order which is a final and not an interlocutory order.  However, under O 59 r 4 of the RHC (Cap 4), the time to appeal has expired 28 days after the date of the order. Further, under O 59 r 15 of the RHC, this court has no jurisdiction to extend the time of the appeal.  If the applicant seeks to make an application to extend the time of the appeal against the order dated 7 October 2013, such application has to be made before the Court of Appeal.

5.  On 30 January 2014, I handed down the decision on the applicant’s application to vary the costs order nisi and the summary assessment of costs.  Under s 14 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4), leave to appeal is required to appeal against a costs order made by a judge of the Court of First Instance.  In such circumstances, I threat this application as an application for leave to appeal against the costs order dated 30 January 2014.

6.  My reasoning on the decision on costs has been fully set out in my written decision dated 30 January 2014.  The applicant lost in the proceedings before me.  It is a clear case that costs should follow the event and so the applicant should pay for the costs of the appeal against the Master’s order.  So far as the quantum of the costs is concerned, the amount of costs claimed by the respondent is very reasonable.  In such circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal against the costs order and I therefore dismiss the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against such costs order. 

7.  For the above reasons, I also dismiss all the other applications by the applicant and I now listen to the parties’ submissions on the issue of costs.