釋照月 v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

HCMP 496/2017&
HCA 595/2019
(Heard Together)

[2025] HKCFI 3015

HCMP 496/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 496 OF 2017

____________

____________

AND

HCA 595/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 595 OF 2019

____________

____________

(Heard Together)

_______________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION AND
DECISION ON COST

_______________________________________

1.  This was the hearing of 2 sets of summonses concerning the extension of the appointment of The Hong Kong Buddhist Association (“HKBA”), and the extension of time for the commencement of taxation.

2.  By a judgment dated 30 May 2023 (“the Judgment”), B Chu J ordered, amongst others, costs in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (“Jan” and “Pong”) to be borne by Man Wah Tong (“the Tong”) (“the Costs Order”).

3.  On 27 June 2023, the Tong (under the former manageresses) and the former manageresses commenced appeals in CACV 195/2023 and 196/2023 to challenge the Judgment (“the Appeals”).

4.  By an order dated 15 November 2023, B Chu J appointed HKBA as the interim administrator and manager of the Tong until determination of the Appeals (“the Appointment Order”). HKBA was formally substituted as the 3^rd Defendant in HCMP 496/2017 and as the Plaintiff in HCA 595/2019 in place of the former manageresses, and as the Appellants in the Appeals by order of Au JA.

5.  On 4 November 2024, by letter to the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the former manageresses confirmed their intention not to pursue the Appeals.

6.  There were 2 sets of summonses before me:

(1)  There were 2 summonses taken out by HKBA on 29 April 2025 in each of HCMP 496/2017 and HCA 595/2019 to extend its appointment as interim administrator and manager of the Tong for 9 months, regardless of whether the Appeals have been determined or otherwise disposed of (“the Extension Summons”). The parties’ respective positions on this Summons were:

(a)  The Secretary for Justice (“SJ”) consented to the application;

(b)  Jan and Pong did not oppose the extension of appointment but submitted that the extension should at most be for 3 months;

(c)  Sik, the Plaintiff in HCMP 496/2017, did not attend but indicated by letter that he had no objection to the proposed course of action of HKBA.

After hearing arguments, I granted a 9-month extension with some adjustment to the wording.

(2)  The other Summons was taken out by Jan and Pong on 19 June 2025 for extension of time to commence taxation proceedings in respect of the Costs Order until one year after conclusion of the appeal in CACV 196/2023 (“the Taxation Summons”). This was dismissed as time has not yet started to run. Costs of the Summons were to be paid by Jan and Pong to HKBA.

7.  Here are my reasons.

Extension Summons

8.  HKBA has explained that a 9-month extension was required because:

(1)  Under the Appointment Order, the preparation of a draft Better Administration Order (“BAO”) was not the only piece of work that HKBA had to undertake. HKBA had to look after all the management, administration, finance and religious affairs of the Tong until determination of the Appeals.

(2)  Even before HKBA was appointed as interim manager of the Tong, the Tong has been involved in multiple legal proceedings in the High Court, including the Appeals, and 4 other sets of proceedings. There were even fresh proceedings afterwards. After its appointment as interim manager, HKBA has incurred substantial time, effort and resources to deal with court cases of which the Tong is a party. The administrative and managerial issue of the Tong as revealed in those proceedings, the investigations made by HKBA into those issues and the HKBA’s experience in handling those proceedings would be of value to the proposals to be made in the draft BAO.

(3)  HKBA had taken counsel’s advice on the merits of the Appeals and decided to apply for dismissal of the Appeals. However, it still has to complete the task of drafting the BAO for the Court’s sanction under the Appointment Order.

(4)  According to Ms Linda Chan, Government Counsel, HKBA had, by the time of this hearing, given 3 partial drafts to SJ. SJ has provided his comments to the format and level of details. HKBA and SJ have differences in approach and ongoing discussions were and are required.

(5)  Completion of the draft BAO would not be the end of the matter. According to the Appointment Order, HKBA was to prepare a detailed affidavit exhibiting the draft BAO and setting out the bases of the proposals put forward in the draft for the Court’s sanction.

(6)  HKBA is a non-profit organization. It is also the largest buddhist association in Hong Kong, entrusted to look after most of the buddhist activities and communities in Hong Kong. HKBA is normally run and operated by various management committees which hold regular monthly meetings. It is inevitable that some time would be required in obtaining instructions or confirmation from HKBA, compared to the situation of obtaining instructions from private individuals.

9.  Mr Wang, however, pointed out that 19 months had elapsed since the Appointment Order and yet HKBA still required another 9 months to complete.

10.  The parties agreed that the 2 major tasks that HKBA was charged with was to handle the Appeals and finalise the draft of the BAO for the Court’s sanction. I agree with Mr Wang that other work under sub-paragraphs 8(1) and (2) carry less weight in deciding the extension period because HKBA’s role is just to hold the rein.

11.  Even so, there was no evidence to show that HKBA and/or SJ had been dragging their feet in the past 19 months. The matters that HKBA had to attend to and the anticipated time required as set out in paragraph 8 above was reasonable. In any case, Jan and Pong were not parties to the drafting process. They were in no position to comment on the time required to complete the task of drafting the BAO.

12.  In the premises, I was satisfied that 9 months’ extension was reasonable.

13.  Since the Appeals were to be withdrawn, the best way was to peg the 9 months to the other most important task. I therefore ordered that the appointment be extended for 9 months, “regardless of whether the appeals in CACV 195/2023 and CACV 196/2023 have been determined or otherwise disposed of or until the BAO is sanctioned by the Court pursuant to paragraph (c) of the judgment dated 15 November 2023, whichever is the later”.

14.  SJ has not asked for costs. Jan and Pong’s objection was not justified. I therefore made no order as to costs.

Taxation Summons

15.  Under Order 62, r.22(7)(a), a party is not entitled to commence taxation proceedings after the expiry of 2 years from the completion date.

16.  Under Order 62, r.22(9)(a), completion date in relation to a costs order made by the Court of First Instance means: (i) the date of the judgment or order of the Court of First Instance which disposes of the action; or (ii) the date on which the Court of First Instance makes the costs order, or if the order is an order nisi, the date on which the order is made absolute or varied (as the case may be), whichever is the later.

17.  In this case, the time to commence taxation has not begun to run because:

(1)  The Costs Order was a nisi order.

(2)  Jan and Pong have a pending summons dated 20 June 2023 for variation of the cost order nisi in HCA 595/2019. By the Appointment Order, costs of Jan and Pong in HCA 595/2019 were reserved until the determination of the Appeals.

(3)  Despite the HKBA’s indication to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal in February 2025 that they intended to have the Appeals dismissed, the Appeals remained extant. This was because HKBA was concerned that upon dismissal of the Appeals, their interim appointment would cease and work under the Appointment Order (including the drafting of the BAO) would remain undone. HKBA had to wait for an order under the Extension Summons.

18.  Accordingly, no time extension to commerce taxation was needed at all.

19.  Costs should follow the event. However, Mr Wang submitted that costs of this hearing should be disallowed. That was because Jan and Pong took out this summons only out of abundance of caution due to HKBA’s indication of withdrawal of the Appeals and yet HKBA only indicated its stance at this hearing.

20.  With respect, the Taxation Summons was unnecessary even on the face of the undisputed facts set out in paragraph 17 above and even on Mr Wang’s own submission. The grounds advanced by HKBA in opposition to the Taxation Summons (effectively about when Jan and Pong were informed of the withdrawal of appeals and proposals on settlement of costs and interests) were wholly irrelevant. The Summons was dealt with at this first call over hearing.

21.  In the premises, I ordered that costs of the Taxation Summons be borne by Jan and Pong.

22.  I summarily assess such costs of HKBA at $5,000.