DCPI 2676/2016
[2018] HKDC 914
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 2676 OF 2016
--------------------------------------
BETWEEN
LAW CHING YU (羅靜如)
Plaintiff
and
CHENG KWOK WING LEO trading as SECURITY CONSULTANT & ENGINEERING CO.
Defendant
--------------------------------------
Before: Deputy District Judge Alfred Cheng in Chambers (Open to Public)
Date of Hearing: 27 July 2018
Date of Decision: 27 July 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision: 2 August 2018
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR DECISION
--------------------------------------
1. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the defendant’s Notice of Appeal issued on 24 May 2018. I indicated that I would hand down my reasons later. These are the reasons.
THE FACTS
2. The plaintiff claims damages against the defendant arising out of a work accident. Nothing turns on the underlying dispute.
3. The defendant acknowledged the service of the Writ of Summons on 17 December 2017. All along, he has been acting in person.
4. On 10 January 2018, the plaintiff’s solicitors served a copy of the Statement of Claim, a copy of the Statement of Damages, and other documents in support of the plaintiff’s claim (“the Documents”) on the plaintiff, allegedly by inserting the Documents into the letter box of the defendant’s address stated in the Acknowledgement of Service, ie Room 306, 3/F, Fat Lee Industrial Building, 17 Hung To Road, Kwun Tong.
5. There was also a subsequent attempt to serve the Documents by ordinary post on 8 March 2018.
6. On 8 May 2018, the defendant issued a Summons, returnable on 10 May 2018 before Master Soong, who was to preside over the Checklist Review Hearing scheduled on that day. The defendant asked for declarations that the service of the Documents on 10 January 2018, and by ordinary post on 8 march 2018 be set aside.
7. The parties attended before Master Soong on 10 May 2018. I was informed by Ms Leung, solicitor for the plaintiff, that the defendant orally stated his position to the learned Master. The defendant confirmed that Ms Leung’s summary of what transpired on 10 May 2018 was correct.
8. Master Soong then ordered the defendant’s Summons be adjourned to the next Checklist Review Hearing (to take place on 15 November 2018), with costs reserved.
9. Master Soong’s order was drawn up by the plaintiff in Chinese, and it was sealed on 21 May 2018. The defendant confirmed that he received a copy of the sealed order, and he understood Chinese.
10. But on 24 May 2018, the defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge Master Soong’s order. In the Notice, the defendant described Master Soong to have dismissed his Summons of 8 May 2018, and required him to file a Defence within 42 days from 10 May 2018.
11. Based on the chronology above, it is clear that the defendant’s appeal is misguided. It is clear that he is not appealing against the Master’s decision to adjourn his Summons. Since the learned Master has not disposed of his Summons, there is nothing for him to appeal against. This appeal must, therefore, stand to be dismissed.
12. I was surprised, to put as mildly as I can, in the way the defendant misrepresented what Master Soong’s order actually was in the Notice of Appeal. The Notice was drafted in English. Upon my inquiry, the defendant said it was drafted with the assistance of someone who had knowledge about litigation. He supplied the information to that person as to what Master Soong decided on 10 May 2018.
13. The defendant claimed that he did not properly understand what Master Soong actually decided on 10 May 2018. He did not appreciate that the learned Master simply deferred his Summons to the next hearing. He simply thought that his request to have the service of the Documents set aside was not entertained, and thus he would need to seek redress through other means.
14. I set out the defendant’s explanation at length, because I must stress that litigants in person have the same duty as others to assist the court to come to the correct decision. Whilst indulgence is given by the court to litigants in person from time to time, it does not mean that they can voice their perceived grievances in a maverick way. I do not accept that the defendant could not ascertain the true effect of the learned Master’s order, particularly when he had assistance at hand. The sealed order states, in no uncertain terms, that his Summons was adjourned to the next Checklist Review Hearing.
15. I thought about taking further action against the defendant with respect to the way he misled the court by the Notice of Appeal. Ultimately, I decided against it, as I convinced myself to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said he could not truly appreciate the effect of the learned Master’s order.
ORDERS
16. I made the following orders at the hearing:-
(1) The defendant’s Notice of Appeal issued on 24 May 2018 be dismissed.
(2) Costs of this appeal be to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.
(3) The plaintiff’s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
17. I prepared these reasons in English, because the defendant’s Notice of Appeal, and his affirmation are both in English. The defendant can make an appointment with my clerk to have these reasons interpreted to him, if he so wishes.
(Alfred Cheng)
Deputy District Judge
Ms K Leung of Lau & Chan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the plaintiff
The defendant, being unrepresented, present