SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

HCMP260/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 260 OF 2013

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1. The defendant is well-known to the court, having been involved in many litigations. He was unsuccessful in, amongst others, 3 sets of litigations – HCA 2351/05, HCA 125/05 and HCA 2458/07 (“3 Litigations”). Each of the 3 Litigations was filed by the defendant against judicial officers and other government officials. As a consequence of the failure, various orders of costs (“Costs Orders”) were made against him. He has failed to pay any of those costs, resulting in enforcement action being taken against him.

2. Three absolute charging orders have been obtained by the plaintiff in respect of a property owned by the defendant to enforce the Costs Orders.  By an originating summons dated 6 February 2013 (“Originating Summons”), the plaintiff seeks an order to have the property sold in order to satisfy the Costs Orders.  In response, the defendant issued a Summons dated 3 June 2013 to strike out the Originating Summons on the ground that various provisions in the Basic Law have allegedly been violated.  Two days later, another Summons was taken by the defendant seeking to have Master M Wong (“Master”) recused from hearing the Originating Summons.

3. Both of the defendant’s Summonses were dismissed by the Master.  Against such dismissal the defendant now appeals. 

4. I should say at the outset that there is no merits in this appeal. 

5. In respect of the recusal application, it is premised upon the Master’s previous dealing in a set of proceedings in the Lands Tribunal, LDBM 56/08 (“LT Proceedings”) involving matters wholly unconnected with any one of the 3 Litigations.  The Master had given a decision in the LT Proceedings in June 2009.  However, as pointed out by Mr Lee who appeared for the plaintiff, the defendant was not a party to the LT Proceedings.  Whatever involvement the defendant might have had in those proceedings, I am unable to see any basis for suggesting that the Master can be biased (let alone being dishonest as submitted by the defendant) against him in dealing with the Originating Summons.

6. As regards the strike out application, I am unable to understand the extravagant argument that there are provisions in the Basic Law which absorb the defendant from paying what has been ordered against him by the court.  There is no foundation for the wild allegation made by the defendant that the Costs Orders are the products of some devious conspiracy against him committed by the Chinese government.  Plainly, the defendant is unhappy with the results of the 3 Litigations.  His recourse is to appeal against those results.  He did not do so, and therefore must abide by the Costs Orders.  The Originating Summons seeks to enforce the Costs Orders.  There is no proper ground at all to strike out the same.

7. In the premises, this appeal must be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.  Such costs are to be assessed summarily on papers.  The plaintiff is to file and serve a statement of costs within 3 working days from today.  The defendant is to file and serve his grounds in opposition, not exceeding 2 pages, within 7 days thereafter.  The plaintiff is to file and serve his reply, if any and not exceeding 2 pages, within 3 working days thereafter.