|
[English Translation – 英譯本]
HCA 1029/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Civil Action No. 1029 of 2013
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHAN OI YUK |
Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
|
LAM CHOI CHUN |
1st Defendant
(discontinued) |
|
TSE WAN KWAI |
2nd Defendant |
________________________
| Before: Hon Louis Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 5 April 2017 |
| Date of Determination: 5 April 2017 |
DETERMINATION
1. The second defendant applied for legal aid on 30 March 2017. It was her third application.
2. Unless the court otherwise orders, pursuant to Section 15 of the Legal Aid Ordinance and Section 7A of the Legal Aid Regulations, the proceedings of this action would be stayed for 42 days due to the second defendant’s application for legal aid.
3. This action was brought by the plaintiff in 2013. In February 2014, the second defendant filed a defence. In October 2015, she was allowed to amend her defence. Later, on 2 February 2017, she was allowed to re-amend her defence.
4. This action commenced in 2013. The second defendant was all along represented by a solicitor and a barrister until 30 March 2017. In the meantime, she had changed her solicitor and barrister. Her preparatory work had already been completed before the pre-trial review on 18 January 2017. However, at the pre-trial review, I gave an additional direction, requiring both parties to make further preparations, including providing surveyors’ reports to prove whether a staircase could be constructed from the second floor of the village house on the lot involved to the ground surface below within the area of that lot. Apart from this, the second defendant had finished her preparations for the trial of this action.
5. However, the second defendant made her third application for legal aid on 27 March 2017. Her two previous applications were made on 22 November 2013 and 16 October 2015 respectively. If the court allows the proceedings of this action to be stayed for 42 days due to her application for legal aid this time, the second pre-trial review originally fixed for 9:30am today and the trial fixed for 19 to 20 April 2017 will both have to be adjourned. This will be extremely unfair to the plaintiff.
6. The second defendant has not yet complied with the direction given by the court at the pre-trial review on 18 January. However, apart from this, she has finished her preparatory work. As for the direction given by the court on 18 January, she has had sufficient time to comply with it. Therefore, despite her third application for legal aid, I cannot see any reason for adjourning the pre-trial review and the trial of this action.
7. The second defendant said that her eldest son passed away on 2 January this year. This is a great misfortune, but it should not have any influence on the trial to be conducted in the fourth year after the commencement of this action.
8. For the above reasons, I now, pursuant to Section 15 of the Legal Aid Ordinance, lift the 42-day stay. The second pre-trial review fixed for 9:30am today and the trial fixed for 19 to 20 April 2017 will therefore be conducted as scheduled.
| |
(Louis Chan) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Yip Chi-hong, Timmy, instructed by Keith Lam Lau & Chan and assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the Plaintiff.
The 2nd Defendant in person, present.
Translated by the Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary and vetted by Mr. P. Y. Lo, Barrister-at-law.
|