MAKHSSIAN TRAJAN VAHE v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT MANAGEMENT CO LTD

CAMP 72/2017

[2018] HKCA 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 72 OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 2395 of 2016)

_______________

_______________

AND

CAMP 73/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 73 OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 43 of 2017)

_______________

_______________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  Having read and considered the so-called Reasons for Appeal lodged by the plaintiff on 14 December 2017 and other documents already lodged, the Court is of the view that there is no basis for an urgent hearing of the application.

2.  Further, the Court is of the view that the applications of the plaintiff are not supported by a proper statement (required to be filed by Order 59 Rule 2A) and proper grounds of appeal.  The deficiencies were identified by the Registrar of Civil Appeals in the directions of 11 and 19 December 2017. So far, the plaintiff has failed to rectify the deficiencies.

3.  As provided in Practice Direction 4.1, leave applications are considered on papers and if the Court does not find any merit, they will be dismissed on the papers without any hearing, see also Order 59 Rule 2A(8).  The plaintiff has, despite reminder by the Registrar, singularly failed to identify the so-called errors of the judge and the false evidence of the Defendants in his applications.  Hence, the Court will not entertain any grounds which have not been canvassed on papers.  The plaintiff’s request for submission of verbal explanation is misconceived.

4.  Moreover, the plaintiff should have applied for leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance before making applications to this Court, see Singh Arjun v Secretary for Justice [2014] 2 HKLRD 678; Jenho Development Ltd v Tse Tung Hoi HCMP 277 of 2013, 25 March 2013; QY v YY HCMP 99 of 2015, 16 February 2015.  Since 1 December 2017, with the amendment of Order 59 Rule 2B by adding Rule 2B(6) pursuant to the Rules of High Court (Amendment) Rules 2017, the position regarding the Court of First Instance is the same as that of the District Court.  This Court will not entertain such applications when the plaintiff does not follow the correct procedure in terms of seeking leave from Lok J first.

5.  Hence, as things stand, the applications by the plaintiff are totally without merit and vexatious.  We dismiss the applications and make an order under Order 59 Rule 2A(8) that no party to the applications may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.