YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD

DCCJ 3068/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 3068 OF 2013

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

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

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

DECISION

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

1.  The is the decision of the plaintiff’s summons taken out for the purpose of seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of my Decision given on 11 February 2015.

2.  It is trite that leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard: see section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, Cap 336.

3.  The term "reasonable prospect of success" means that the applicant must show that the prospect of succeeding are "reasonable" and therefore must be more than "fanciful", without having to the "probable".

4.  With respect to plaintiff, most of the submissions she relies on today in seeking leave for the appeal are no more than repeating what she had argued before me in the original hearing, albeit expressed in different terms.

5.  For those matters, I have already given the reasons in the written Decision dated 11 February 2015.  I do not agree that I have erred either in law or in fact as stated by the plaintiff in her skeleton submissions in this case.

6.  For the couple of new issues raised by the plaintiff at today’s hearing, I do not regard that they contain any matters of substance which will enable her to argue that she has a reasonable prospect of success in her proposed appeal.   

7.  I therefore come to the view that the plaintiff's proposed grounds of appeal do not carry a reasonable prospect of success.  I also do not see why in the interest of justice leave should be granted in this case.  I shall accordingly dismiss the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal with costs.

8.  Regarding the plaintiff's second summons in respect of costs asking the court to have the costs of the original application to be taxed, I note that summarily taxation is now a norm for a trial judge or a master after hearing an interlocutory matter, particularly after the CJR.  In any event, such matters in relation to costs and how they should be assessed are matters entirely within the discretion of the court.  Therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff's submissions contain no substance at all and should likewise be dismissed with costs.  In my view, there is no reason why this court cannot summarily assess the costs arising out of the application made by the defendant on the last occasion.  The plaintiff is therefore directed to file and serve a list of objections to the defendant’s statement of costs dated 4 March 2015 within 14 days from today, failing of which the costs will be summarily assessed by the court with reference to the plaintiff’s statement of costs only.

9.  For today’s costs, I would like to summarily assess the costs of the plaintiff’s application.

10.  Having heard the parties, I summarily assess the costs of today’s application at HK$58,000, such costs to be paid forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendant.