CHENG CHEUNG WANG v. LO NOI YUNG AND OTHERS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

No. 1747 of 1987
Miscellaneous Proceedings

________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hunter, J.A.:

1. This is another chapter in an horrendous piece of litigation. The present applicants are seven persons, companies or individuals, who seek to intervene in an existing appeal brought by the existing defendants. There seem to be two appeals against an order made by His Honour Judge Scriven as long ago as 15^th October 1986. The effect of that order was to confirm the interim appointment of Collier Petty as administrators of the building in question, and to confirm the dissolution of the management committee (if any) then existing.

2. The application was originally made to Judge Scriven and in effect rejected. Leave to appeal against that decision was apparently made to this Court and refused. Judge Scriven was then invited to review his decision. That was also refused.

3. I say these things because this is what we have been told today. One of the most lamentable features of this application is that the papers are in a totally inadequate condition. The court has not been presented with proper documentation at all. How the matter has been brought before this court in the mess it is, I do not start to understand.

4. Following those procedural steps a Notice of Motion was issued which came before Cons, V.P. on 18^th September. That was an application in the same terms as that which is brought before us, for leave for these seven applicants to be joined. He considered the application and rejected it. The last sentence of his decision reads as follows:-

“There is no suggestion that the Applicants can put forward arguments different from those which will be advanced by the present seven respondents to the appeal or that their position is in any way significantly different. Indeed from what I have seen in Court this morning I am inclined to think that there is indeed little difference in identity. Nothing is to be gained, except further expense, by a mere increase in the number of parties to the appeal, and I therefore refuse this application.”

5. What Cons, V.P. was there doing was this. He was assuming in favour of the applicants that they had a sufficient interest to entitle them to ask the court to be joined in the proceedings. But the crucial question was were they in a position to add anything new? Had they any new arguments that they wished to present, bearing in mind that there were already seven parties to this appeal? One in particular Madam Wong has been responsible for massive litigation in relation to this property over the past 2 or 3 years.

6. The answer of Cons, V.P. was that he could detect no additional interest. Mr. Wong who has conducted the application for the applicants before us today, conceded that the arguments which his clients would wish to advance are substantially the same as those which will inevitably be advanced by the existing parties.

7. It follows that the only significant event which would follow by acceding to this application is that if the appeal fails, the applicants might be rendered liable to bear the whole or part of the costs. That seems to us to be a totally pointless exercise fro the applicants’ point of view.

8. In the circumstances we can see no grounds whatever for criticizing, still less interfering with or varying, the order already made by Cons, V.P.

9. Finally we should add that this piece of litigation has already come before various divisions of this court in various guises. Each time the court then constituted has had to grapple with a very complicated task. We have been told this afternoon that four appeals are outstanding. We propose to give the following directions as to the hearing of those appeals, and any related applications.

10. First they should be brought on at the earliest possible moment. Secondly that they should be brought on before a court constituted as the present court is constituted, if that is possible. If that is not possible then they should be brought on before a court presided over by Silke, V.P..

11. This application is rejected.