LOKE MEI YUK, MIMI v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA1819/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1819 OF 2006

---------------------

---------------------

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

------------------------

1.     The plaintiff Madam Loke appealed against Master Levy’s decision on 30 November 2007 dismissing her summons with costs.  The summons was issued on 14 November 2007 for the following orders:

“1.   The Court is under the obligation to enter Summary Judgment for the above-named Plaintiff against the above-named defendant under Order 14 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of the High Court.

2.    The 1^st-named Defendant’s letters of interrogatories dated 30/08/2006, 21/09/2006 and 03/10/2006 issued by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes & Master be withdrawn under Order 2 r. 2 of the Rules of the High Court.

3.    The Defence and Counterclaim dated 05/09/2006 made by the 2^nd-named Defendant Ms WONG Wai Yin be struck out under O. 2 r. 2 of RHC.”

2.     In respect of the aforesaid paragraph 2 the 1^st defendant submitted that the so-called “letters of interrogatories dated 30/08/2006, 21/09/2006 and 03/10/2006” were not interrogatories.  They are respective letters from JSM to the plaintiff :

(1)     asking the plaintiff to withdraw her claim;

(2)     inviting the plaintiff to attend court to fix the date for hearing of the 1^st defendant’s striking out application; and

(3)     informing the plaintiff of the hearing date fixed for the striking out application. 

3.     The plaintiff’s aforesaid application can be better understood by the background to this case.  It was started by a writ of summons on 21 August 2006 against the 1^st defendant for a claim of $74 million.  The 1^st defendant then took out a summons to strike out the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim on 9 September 2006.  Master Yu acceded to the request of the 1^st defendant and struck out the plaintiff’s case on 4 January 2007. 

4.     The plaintiff appealed against Master Yu’s order and the appeal was heard before Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan on 1 February 2007.  Deputy Judge Chan dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on 6 March 2007.  The plaintiff launched an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the same will be heard on 7 March 2008.  In other words the plaintiff’s claims had already been struck out.  The plaintiff could not take out a summons for direction and under such a disguise even ask for summary judgment against the defendants. 

5.     I entirely agree with Master Levy’s order to dismiss the plaintiff’s summons.  Accordingly the plaintiff’s appeal before me today is dismissed with costs to the 1^st defendant. 

                   [The court then proceeded to make a Restrictive Proceedings Order and a Restrictive Application Order against the plaintiff.  Accordingly the intended application by another summons intended to be issued today is also prohibited by the court.]