MISS LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. MR CARSON WEN AND OTHERS

HCA 121/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 121 OF 2017

____________

____________

____________

DECISION

____________

Introduction

1.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 17 July 2017, Madam Leung appeals/applies to appeal against the following five decisions of the masters made on diver dates:

(1) the Order of Master J. Wong dated 8 March 2017 (“March Order (1)”) that

(a) the 1^st to 5^th Defendants’ Summons dated 27 February 2017 be adjourned to a date to be fixed for argument with 1 hour reserved;

(b) the time for 1^st to 5^th Defendants to file and serve their Defence be extended for 28 days until the determination of the Summons;

(2) the Order of Master K. Lo dated 24 March 2017 (“March Order (2)”) that

(a) the time for the 3^rd Defendant to file and serve its Defence, if any, be extended for 28 days from the date of determination of paragraph 1 of the 3^rd Defendant’s Summons dated 10 March 2017;

(b) the Summons be adjourned to a date to be fixed for argument with 2 hours reserved;

(3) the Order of Master K. Hui dated 7 April 2017 (“April Order”) that leave to the 2^nd, 4^th and 6^th Defendants to file and serve their Defence within 28 days after the determination of the Summons filed by the 1^st and 5^th Defendants on 27 February 2017;

(4) the Order of Master K. Hui dated 8 May 2017 (“May Order”) that

(a) The Plaintiff do within 28 days from the date of the Order produce for inspection all the documents set out in the Schedule annexed to the 1^st and 5^th Defendants’ Summons filed on 27 February 2017.

(b) The time for the 1^st and 5^th Defendants to file and serve their Defence be extended for 28 days from the date when the Plaintiff has (i) produced the documents for inspection and (ii) filed and served the further and better particulars requested by the 1^st and 5^th Defendants in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order of Master K. Hui dated 8 May 2017.

(c) Costs of the application including today’s hearing summarily assessed at HK$20,000 be paid by the Plaintiff to the 1^st and 5^th Defendants forthwith.

(5) the Order of Master K. Lo dated 12 July 2017 (“July Order”) that the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants’ Summons filed on 29June 2017 be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with 3 hours reserved.

2.  It can be seen from the dates of the five orders that except the July Order, the time for appealing against all such orders has expired. Madam Leung has to apply for an extension of time in respect of her appeal against such orders.

July Order

3.  I should first deal with her appeal against the July Order. This appeal is patently unmeritorious. Master K. Lo merely gave the usual directions with a view to the efficient disposal of the application of all the defendants except Jones Day by their summons dated 29 June 2017 for further and better particulars of the further and better particulars given on 2 June 2017 by Madam Leung. The summons was eventually determined by Master Hui on 17 November 2017 in favour of the relevant defendants.

4.  I bear in mind that this appeal is to be dealt with by way of an actual rehearing of the application which led to the order under appeal. This court is not dealing with the subsequent determination of Master Hui. I would have dealt with the summons in exactly the same manner as the master did and would have given the same directions for case management purposes at the call-over hearing. I see no merit in this appeal.

Other orders

5.  For all other appeals, Madam Leung has offered no explanation for the delays at all. The delays are not insubstantial and the shortest one in respect of the May Order is still more than 2 months. Nevertheless, this court should proceed to consider the merits of the intended appeals.

March Order (1) and May Order

6.  These two orders can be considered together. They were made in relation to the application of the 1^st and 5^th defendants for specific discovery of 22 documents and further and better particulars of the Statement of Claim.

7.  The March Order (1) was made at a call-over hearing for case management purposes and usual directions were given to the parties to file evidence for the argument of the application at the adjourned hearing on 8 May 2017. The adjournment was clearly necessary as the parties were yet to finish filing of their evidence and the time was insufficient as well. The master did not actually make any determination on the application at all and the March Order (1) was merely to hold the ring. I would have made the same directions. Madam Leung is unable to persuade this court how such directions are wrong.

8.  Master Hui eventually acceded to the application of the 1^st and 5^th defendants and made the May Order. Madam Leung’s complaint, as I can understand from her, is that because of certain confidentiality agreements, unless otherwise ordered by a court, she is obliged to keep such 22 documents sought to be specifically discovered confidential. On the other hand, she complains that before the 1^st and 5^th defendants made the application, in February this year, she already sent to them the 22 documents by way of emails. Lastly, she maintains that the defendants should be able to deal with the Statement of Claim without seeking the further and better particulars.

9.  Madam Leung in fact has purportedly complied with the May Order albeit not to the satisfaction of the 1^st and 5^th defendants. She served her Answer in June 2017 but the 1^st and 5^th defendants applied to seek further and better particulars thereof. Their application has been adjourned for argument by the July Order.

10.  The claim of Madam Leung is for outstanding introduction fee in the sum of HK$2,500,000,000 relating to her service rendered to the defendants. Allegedly she has introduced certain investors to Mr Wen. The Statement of Claim, prepared by Madam Leung in person, is very difficult to understand. I agree that further and better particulars are necessary and the defendants are entitled to have a clear understanding of the allegations before they can file a meaningful defence to the same.  I too agree that the defendants’ application for further and better particulars should be allowed in the first place and Madam Leung fails to convince me otherwise.

11.  As regards the defendants’ application for specific discovery, they merely asked for inspection of the documents referred to in the Statement of Claim. I see no reason why their application should be refused.

12.  Madam Leung’s position is difficult to understand. If she really required a court order to disclose those documents because of the alleged confidentiality agreements, she cannot really complain about the May Order. She is not denying her possession of the same and that they are not relevant.

13.  Her argument that the 1^st and 5^th defendants have already had in their possession of those documents is not tenable. She does not understand her duty of disclosure in this action, from which she cannot be absolved regardless of whether the 1^st and 5^th defendants already have a copy of those documents.

April Order

14.  Master Hui made the April Order to allow the application by the 2^nd, 4^th and 6^th defendants for an order that their time to file and serve their defence be extended until 28 days after the determination of the foregoing application of the 1^st and 5^th defendants.

15.  Madam Leung could only repeat her complaint about the application of the 1^st and 5^th defendants. I have only explained why I believe that the application should be granted. I am of the view that the 2^nd, 4^th and 6^th defendants had the same obstacles in filing their defence if the further and better particulars were not given and the relevant documents were not disclosed in this action. They were entitled to wait for the determination of the application before filing their defence. I see nothing wrong with the April Order at all.

16.  Lastly, Madam Leung claims that the 2^nd, 4^th and 6^th defendants have no defence at all and this is why they were unable to file their defence. I cannot accept her assertion and in any event it has no bearing on the correctness of the April Order. 

March Order (2)

17.  The March Order (2) was made at the call-over hearing of the 3^rd defendant’s application for an order that the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim be struck out.

18.  Again the March Order (2) was for case management purposes only. The application was eventually heard by Master J Wong on 21 July 2017 after the parties had filed their evidence pursuant to March Order (2). Master J Wong allowed the application and ordered that Madam Leung’s claim as against the 3^rd defendant be struck out.

19.  At the time of the hearing, Madam Leung had not yet filed any notice of appeal against the order despite the lapse of 4 months. At the time of this Decision, I understand that Madam Leung subsequently did so.

20.  In any event, the March Order (2) only served its case management purposes and I fail to understand how it could be faulted. I would have given the same directions.  

Conclusion

21.  I have made an effort to understand Madam Leung’s arguments at the hearing and for the reasons given, I am unable to find any merit in her appeal(s).

22.  Accordingly, I dismiss her appeal against the July Order. I also refuse to grant her leave to appeal against all other orders out of time (the March Order (1), the March Order (2), the April Order and the May Order).

23.  None of the defendants has taken any part in this matter. They have applied for their attendance to be excused. I, therefore, make no order as to costs.