LEUNG KIT HING, DORIS v. ELECTORAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION

CACV 47/2018

[2019] HKCA 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 47 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1016/2017)

________________________

_______________________

____________________________

JUDGMENT

____________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  We handed down our judgment on 10 December 2018. In the judgment, we refused to grant relief against the dismissal of the appeal on account of Ms Leung’s failure to comply with the unless order of 17 August 2018. We held that Ms Leung’s appeal against the decisions of Chow J of 9 and 15 February 2018 were totally without merit and the continuation with the appeal would be vexatious. We further ordered costs against Ms Leung in favour of the putative respondent in the sum of $45,000.

2.  By a notice of motion of 4 January 2019, Ms Leung sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.

3.  Pursuant to Order 59 Rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A and PD 2.1, notwithstanding the request of Ms Leung in a letter of 24 January 2019 for an oral hearing, we consider that it is appropriate to determine the notice of motion and the summonses of Ms Leung of 18 and 25 January 2019 on the papers without any oral hearing.

4.  On 8 January 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals [“RCA”] gave directions to Ms Leung for the progress of the motion in accordance with PD 2.1. 

5.  Ms Leung issued a summons on 18 January 2019 seeking to set aside the directions of the RCA.  She took objection to the RCA directing her to serve the papers in connection with the motion on the parties on whom she had served the notice of motion.

6.  In the notice of motion, she stated that she had served the notice on “all parties and CFA, EU Ct HR and UNHCR”.

7.  On 25 January 2019, Ms Leung issued another summons seeking unintelligible relief under paragraph (1) and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under paragraph (2) and no order for costs under paragraph (3).

8.  Ms Leung lodged several sets of submission in support of her applications.

9.  The Department of Justice, as solicitors for the putative respondent informed the court on 1 February 2019 that Ms Leung did not serve the submission on them.

10.  Having considered all the materials placed before us, we hold as follows:

(a) Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused as Ms Leung’s application for judicial review is, as explained in our judgment of 10 December 2018, obviously vexatious. She did not raise any arguable question of great general public importance.  Nor do we see any reasons in the interest of justice to submit the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Ms Leung does not satisfy the statutory leave threshold in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484;

(b) As the putative respondent had taken part in the appeal before us and we have made costs order in favour of them in our judgment of 10 December 2018, coupled with the fact that Ms Leung had served the notice of motion on them, Ms Leung cannot refuse to serve her submission on them and the summons of 18 January 2019 is without merit. It is also wrong for her not to serve the summonses of 18 January and 25 January 2019 on the putative respondent; and

(c) The summons of 25 January 2019 adds nothing to the notice of motion and it is equally unmeritorious. 

11.  We dismiss the notice of motion of 4 January 2019 and the summonses of 18 and 25 January 2019 accordingly.  We also order Ms Leung to pay the putative respondent the costs of the notice of motion.  To facilitate summary assessment, the putative respondent shall serve and lodge its statement of costs (limited to 2 A4 pages) within 14 days from the handing down of this judgment and Ms Leung shall serve and lodge objection to such statement (limited to 2 A4 pages) within 7 days thereafter.  We shall then fix the quantum of costs on the papers.