MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

CACV 206/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 1927/1995, HCA 11507/1997 AND
HCA 1427/2001)

_______________________

_______________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. It is against an order of this court of 16 May of this year whereby we ordered that the appeal in this matter be adjourned and the papers be sent to the Official Solicitor for consideration as to whether application should be made under section 7(3) of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136.

2. This appeal comes as the most recent in an extremely long series of actions and applications There is no doubt that the appellant suffers a grave sense of grievance. The appellant has appeared in person and the court gives a wide latitude to litigants in person. It turns a blind eye to many shortcomings of litigants in person, but what has happened in this case goes far beyond shortcomings.

3. Nobody who has seen the pleadings and submissions in this case, or has heard the appellant, could do other than associate themselves with the words of Godfrey JA, when he gave a judgment in this court on 26 June 1998 in an action by the plaintiff against her father. He said:

"Much of the material placed before us today by the plaintiff gives cause for concern as to the state of her mental health and in particular as to whether she is capable of managing and administering her own affairs. The court has power under the Mental Health Ordinance Cap. 136 section 7(1) to make an order directing an inquiry whether any person subject to the jurisdiction of the court who is alleged to be mentally disordered is of unsound mind and incapable of managing herself and affairs, but we cannot do so of our own motion. "

4. That was said four years ago, since then this court has been troubled by many applications by the appellant and I have to say that the submissions which have been made are incomprehensible; they verge on rantings. In a decision of the Lands Tribunal given on 15 October last year, Mak DJ, the Presiding Officer, said:

"I should add that I do not see any basis, evidential or otherwise of conspiracies, as alleged by the respondent. I believe I am justified to say that the respondent was confused by a number of irrelevant matters in these proceedings, in particular, in her probate case. Her submissions and skeleton convince me these conspiracies were at most fantasies which cannot support a foundation of her allegations."

5. In my view the time has long since passed when some help must be given by society to the appellant. The court cannot go on permmitting the appellant to do herself more mental harm by these continued applications. It was for that reason that this court adjourned her appeal and directed that the matter be sent to the Official Solicitor to see what could be done.

6. As regards this application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, it naturally fails, it cannot come within the rubric of being of great or general public importance.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

7. I agree.