TONY BOULTON v. MIRANDA LAM AND ANOTHER

HCA 189/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 189 OF 2008

______________________

______________________

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1.  This court has received representations to the effect that the action was not commenced with proper authority, including a letter from Mr Boulton, the person named as the plaintiff disclaiming any involvement in the commencement of the action. Mr Boulton further said the signature on the Writ was not his signature and it was a forgery.

2.  Further, from the materials attached to a letter from the solicitors for the 1^st Defendant, prima facie it was Lisa Yuen (who is identified as Wang Kai Chi, the 2^nd Defendant, in the Writ) who had caused the action to be commenced in the name of Tony Boulton. In a fax of 5 February 2008 to Tony Boulton, she claimed,

“	The captioned action of HCA 189 of 2008 was filed and served due to your approval given to me from my letter dated 21 January 2008.”
Then she said,
“	Since I am not a solicitor, I cannot act for you anymore. Please appoint JSM or King & Co to act for you and let Ms Miranda Lam to act in person.”

3.  This question of authority has to be resolved before further steps can be taken in the action.

4.  I therefore direct as follows,

(a)	The case be listed for hearing on the question of authority at 10:00 a.m. on 11 April 2008;
(b)	Notice of the hearing and a copy of this decision be given to the following persons at the specified addresses,
	(i)	Tony Boulton also known as Anthony Boulton at the address in Australia in his letter to the court dated 14 February 2008 and the address in Hong Kong stated on the Writ;
	(ii)	Miranda Lam through her solicitors JSM;
	(iii)	Lisa Yuen also known as Wang Kai Chi at the address of the 2nd Defendant stated on the Writ.
(c)	Lisa Yuen shall file affirmation on the issue of authority by 29 February 2008;
(d)	Miranda Lam and Tony Boulton shall file their respective affirmation or affidavit by 14 March 2008;
(e)	No further evidence shall be filed without leave;
(f)	Parties shall lodge written submissions with this court by 26 March 2008.

5.  In the meantime, pending the resolution of the question of authority, all further proceedings in the action be stayed.

6.  Forgery is of course a serious matter with potential criminal consequences. The use of a forged signature to procure a writ to be issued is also an act of contempt. At this stage, this court has yet to decide whether the purported signature of Tony Boulton on the Writ is a forgery.  I am duty bound to mention these because of the privilege against self-incrimination. A party involved in a civil action is not obliged to give evidence (including evidence in the form of affirmation or affidavit) which might incriminate himself or herself. Thus, my above directions regarding the filing of evidence on the question of authority is subject to this important rider. In case of doubt, a party should seek legal advice before filing his or her evidence.