WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO AND OTHERS v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND OTHERS

FAMV No. 1 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV 202 OF 1997)

____________________

____________________

__________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

__________________________

Litton, Acting Chief Justice:

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee, on an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal brought under s32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

2. The matter comes to us in this way. On 24 June 1997 the applicants caused a writ to be issued in the High Court against three defendants: the Hong Kong Government, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise and the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. The statement of claim indorsed in the writ said: "The manage affair unsuitable and unfair. So that causes the statement of claim. $30,700,000." This was accompanied by a document addressed to the Acting Chief Justice in which the applicants said they wished to institute proceedings against various government officials. A number of alleged grievances were set out, such as the fact that electricity supply had been cut from their shop, documents forged, court orders violated, the business registration certificate of their business revoked. These allegations were subsequently supplemented by further documents lodged in court, such as, for instance, a complaint that people had incited the applicants' 3 sons to become big spenders and the fact that the first applicant had, subsequent to the issue of the writ, wrongly been accused of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. We do not purport to set out all the applicants' alleged grievances. These have been detailed in the judgments in the courts below.

3. On 16 July 1997 the defendants took out a summons applying for an order that the statement of claim be struck out and the action dismissed. This was heard by Master Chu who acceded to the application, dismissing the action with costs. The applicants appealed against the dismissal of their action under Order 58 of the Rules of the High Court and their appeal was heard by Deputy Judge Wong on 22 September 1997. This appeal was dismissed on the same day, the formal judgment being sealed and perfected 3 days later, on 25 September. On 15 October the applicants lodged a notice of appeal, appealing against Deputy Judge Wong's judgment, but this was ordered to be struck out by the Court of Appeal on 24 December, on the ground that the notice of appeal was out of time and no reasons had been advanced for the delay. The Court of Appeal also concluded in effect (although it expressed itself somewhat differently) (i) that the notice of appeal did not "qualify" as a proper notice of appeal - meaning that it failed to set out grounds of appeal and (ii) that the applicants' inarticulate grievances against the authorities disclosed no cause of action known to the law.

4. The Court of Appeal was plainly correct in treating the order of 25 September 1997 as "interlocutory" for the purposes of the time limit set out in Order 59 Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court: applying the "applications" test referred to in First Pacific Bank v. Robert H.P. Fung [1990]1 HKLR 527 at 529-H. Accordingly, the time for lodging the notice of appeal expired on 9 October 1997. The Court of Appeal found no satisfactory excuse for lodging the notice of appeal out of time. The applicants now tell us that although Deputy Judge Wong dismissed his appeal on 22 September, it was not until 29 September that the formal order was received. That, in our view, is beside the point. The reality is that, from beginning to end, no grounds of appeal known to the law existed and the Court of Appeal was right in so concluding.

5. There are no possible grounds for allowing this matter to proceed any further. Whatever the applicants' grievances, they cannot form the basis for relief unless they constitute causes of action known to the law, and are properly formulated in accordance with law. We dismiss the application, with costs.