|
HCA002231A/1995
HCA 2231/1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 2231 OF 1995
____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
LAU KWONG HING trading as 樂氏皮褸 |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
LUK CHI KEUNG and WAN CHUN YI |
Defendants |
|
trading as 威世界 and/or 威世界皮褸 |
|
____________
Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 30 July 2001
Date of Decision: 30 July 2001
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
1. The second-named defendant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 4 April 2001 against the Judgment of Waung J dated 7 March 2001. On 4 July 2001, Woo JA ordered (among other things) that the second-named defendant do provide security by paying $70,000.00 into court or by security in that sum in such form and manner as may be approved by the Registrar.
2. By a letter dated 13 July 2001, the second-named defendant offered security by way of a residential unit in Tsing Yi. The said unit is held in the joint names of the 2 defendants. After a hearing on 17 July 2001, the learned Registrar refused to approve the security offered. The second-named defendant lodged a Notice of Appeal on 23 July 2001, apparently under RHC O.58 r.1. This matter is now before me.
3. The first-named defendant has on 11 July 2001 made an application for legal aid. Despite such application, the second-named defendant indicates at this hearing that she has no objection to the continuation of this hearing. I also consider it appropriate to, and did, order this hearing to continue pursuant to section 15(4) of the Legal Aid Ordinance, Cap. 91.
4. I conclude that this appeal is misconceived for the following reasons: -
(1) the learned Registrar's said decision of 17 July 2001 was ministerial or administrative in nature;
(2) in any event, the learned Registrar was exercising a power initially vested in the Court of Appeal and therefore his decision does not fall within the provisions of O.58 which are intended to apply to matters within the powers of the Court of First Instance.
5. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Without deciding the point, the proper course for the second-named defendant may be to bring the matter back to the Court of Appeal if she considers that there are valid grounds for doing so.
|
(Andrew Chung) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
|
High Court |
Representation:
Ms Wong Lui, of Messrs W K To & Co, assigned by DLA, for the plaintiff
Second-named defendant acts in person and present
Please refer to CACV560/2001 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal. |