JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

HCAP 19/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO. 19 OF 2011

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

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

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

DECISION

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

Introduction

1.  This is an application of the plaintiff for leave to appeal against my decision handed down on 18 May 2015 (“the Decision”) whereby this court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of Master M Wong dated 24 October 2014. The master dismissed her application for a review of taxation of the bills of costs of the defendant dated 22 May 2013 (“the Bill”).

2.  The plaintiff’s present application was made out of time, after more than 3 months subsequent to the handing down of the Decision. The plaintiff seeks to justify her delay with reference to her lack of legal assistance and her other commitments. She also refers to the fact that her computer has been out of order. None of the grounds advanced by her can satisfy this court that she has a good excuse. On this ground alone, leave to appeal should be refused.

3.  Nevertheless, this court proceeds to consider the merits of her application.

Purported grounds

4.  I have set out the background facts relating to the plaintiff’s appeal in the Decision and I shall not repeat the same here. Simply stated, the plaintiff’s complaint is that the master, in reviewing his taxation of the Bill, failed to pay heed to her contention that the costs order which Poon J (as he then was) made against her was merely obtained by the defendant using deceptive means.

5.  The plaintiff has filed her written grounds for her intended appeal consisting of 26 pages. At the hearing, the plaintiff repeats to this court her core allegations that the defendant’s counsel misled the judge and wrongly obtained the costs order against her. She highlights the vulnerability and susceptibility of a busy judge to lawyers’ misleading submissions. 

6.  Having heard her submission and reviewed all her written grounds, I stand by my firm view that all of her allegations of improper conduct have nothing to do with the integrity of the Bill and have no bearing on the taxation of the Bill. The plaintiff could have appealed against the costs order but she opted not to do so. She cannot challenge the costs order through the backdoor in the taxation proceedings. I am unable to see how the master could disallow all the items in the Bill as urged upon him by the plaintiff on the ground that the costs order should never have been made at all.

7.  Moreover, I am not convinced that the Order I made in the Decision should be impugned.

8.  In the premises, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff is able to meet the threshold under section 14AA(4) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4. In other words, I do not accept that she has a reasonable prospect of success and/or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why her appeal should be heard.

Conclusion and Order

9.  For the reasons given, I dismiss the plaintiff’s application. I further make an order that the plaintiff should pay the defendant her costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed.