THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

CACV 115/2020,
CAMP 124/2020,
CAMP 170/2020 and
CAMP 178/2020

[2021] HKCA 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 115 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ 4497/2017)

AND

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS 124 and 178 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ 4497/2017)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

AND

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 170 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP 368/2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  In the District Court, the Legislative Council Commission sued Mr Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (“Mr Leung”) in DCCJ 4497/2017 (“the Action”) to recover remuneration paid to the Defendant. Ms Leung Kit-Hing Doris (“Ms Leung”) (who was and is not a party to the Action) has brought numerous unsuccessful applications for leave to be added as a party and/or to give evidence, and has attempted unsuccessfully to appeal the various decisions refusing her applications.

2.  By a judgment of 18 December 2019, HH Judge Leong in DCCJ 4497/2017 [2019] HKDC 1691 refused to re-open his earlier decision on 10 December 2018.  By that earlier decision, Judge Leong dismissed Ms Leung’s appeal against the dismissal by a master of her ex parte summonses to give evidence in the Action. 

3.  In HCMP 368/2020, Ms Leung filed an ex parte application on 27 April 2020 to appeal against the refusal of legal aid for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) in relation to DCCJ 4497/2017 and CACV 333/2018.  On 28 April 2020, Mimmie Chan J held that:

“ 1. Any appeal against refusal of legal aid for appeal to Court of Final Appeal must be to committee under s26A Legal Aid Ordinance, and not to duty judge.

2. Duty Judge of Court of First Instance cannot make any orders for stay of proceedings pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, as sought for DCCJ 4497/2017 and CACV 333/2018 referred to.”

4.  Subsequently, on 5 May 2020, final judgment was entered by the Registrar in DCCJ 4497/2017 against Mr Leung in the amount of HK$929,573 plus interest and costs.  The Registrar also dismissed a summons by Ms Leung on 4 May 2020 which sought a stay of the plaintiff’s claim in the Action.  

5.  On 12 May 2020 Ms Leung filed a Notice of Appeal in DCCJ 4497/2017 against the judgment of 5 May 2020. On the same day, she submitted a letter to the District Court to make an urgent ex parte application to HH Judge Andrew Li to grant her standing in DCCJ 4497/2017 and stay the proceedings.

6.  On 12 May 2020, Judge Andrew Li dismissed Ms Leung’s ex parte application.

7.  The appeal against the master’s decision was heard on 18 September 2020 and dismissed by HH Judge KC Chan on 25 September 2020 [2020] HKDC 827.

8.  In the meantime, on 14 May 2020 Ms Leung filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court in CACV 115/2020 to appeal against the Registrar’s order of 5 May 2020 and Judge Andrew Li’s decision of 12 May 2020.  She also filed another Notice of Appeal in the same set of proceedings to appeal against various decisions of Judge Leong.

9.  The appeal in CACV 115/2020 is obviously incompetent as no leave has been obtained under Section 63(1) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) for such appeal to be brought. Worse still, Ms Leung also issued a number of summonses in this appeal:

(a) Summons of 14 July 2020 for extension of time and stay and to set aside Judge Leong’s orders of 18 December 2019, 14 and 27 April 2020 that were sealed on 13 July 2020 in DCCJ 4497/2017;

(b) Summons of 15 July 2020 to stay the execution of the Registrar’s order of 5 May 2020 in DCCJ 4497/2017; and

(c) Summons of 16 July 2020 for extension of time and stay and to set aside Judge Leong’s order of 18 December 2019 in DCCJ 4497/2017.

10.  On 28 May 2020, in CACV 333/2018 this Court dismissed Ms Leung’s application for an extension of time for leave to appeal to the CFA ([2020] HKCA 377) in relation to her unsuccessful appeal in this Court against the earlier decisions in DCCJ 4497/2017 of Registrar Ho and Master Yip of 13 November 2017 and 12 and 26 June 2018 respectively. 

11.  On the same day, she issued a summons in CACV 115/2020 seeking to set aside our order of 28 May 2020 in CACV 333/2018.

12.  This summons is plainly defective as this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the context of one appeal in respect of decision in another appeal.

13.  CACV 115/2020 which was itself incompetently brought without leave has become a platform for Ms Leung to file voluminous documents, the contents of which are all frivolous and vexatious.

14.  On 10 August 2020, Ms Leung issued a summons in CAMP 124/2020 for leave to appeal to this Court against Judge Leong’s judgment of 18 December 2019 [2019] HKDC 1691.  On the next day, she issued an amended summons in CAMP 124/2020 to include, inter alia, seeking leave to appeal out of time and leave to set aside the Registrar’s order of 5 May 2020.

15.  On 18 September 2020, Ms Leung issued a summons in CAMP 170/2020 to seek an extension of time to appeal against Mimmie Chan J’s decision of 27 April 2020 in HCMP 368/2020.  On 11 February 2021, Ms Leung filed another summons in CAMP 170/2020.  That summons is filed without leave and in contravention of para 15 of Practice Direction 4.1 and will not be entertained.

16.  On 25 September 2020 Ms Leung issued a summons in CAMP 178/2020 for leave to appeal against Judge KC Chan’s judgment of that date in DCCJ 4497/2017.

17.  On 3 August 2020 the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“the RCA”) observed, inter alia, that the Notices of Appeal of 13 and 14 May 2020 in CACV 115/2020 (“2 Notices of Appeal”) as well as the summonses of 28 May and 14, 15 and 16 July 2020 (“4 Summonses”) are liable to be struck out.  The RCA pointed out that an appeal against an order of a District Court Registrar lies to a District Judge, not to the Court of Appeal, and appeals against orders or decisions of a District Judge requires leave from the District Judge, and no such leave has been obtained.  Since then, Ms Leung lodged two Amended Supplementary Notices of Appeal in CACV 115/2020.

18.  The RCA is plainly correct and we agree with his observations.  CACV 115/2020 cannot be brought and Ms Leung is well aware of the defects in light of her previous litigation experience as outlined in the various judgments of this Court, the latest one being CAMP 153/2020, [2020] HKCA 893 dated 6 November 2020.

19.  We therefore order the appeal and all the summonses issued in CACV 115/2020 to be struck out and dismissed.

20.  In CAMP 124/2020, on 16 September 2020 the RCA observed that the summons of 10 August 2020 and the amended summons of 11 August 2020 are liable to be struck out.

21.  Ms Leung lodged her written submissions in CAMP 124/2020 on 30 September 2020.

22.  Notwithstanding Ms Leung’s submissions, we are of the view that there is no merit in the application for leave in CAMPs 124 and 178/2020.  The fundamental and serious incurable defect in Ms Leung’s attempts to be engaged in these proceedings is, as this Court has repeatedly said in dismissing her earlier applications, that she simply has no locus in DCCJ 4497/2017: see [10] of the judgment in CAMP 153/2020 [2020] HKCA 893 at which references were made to earlier judgments. We shall not repeat what we had said in those previous judgments on the lack of standing on the part of Ms Leung.

23.  Since she had no standing to participate in DCCJ 4497/2017, all her applications were doomed to fail.  The judges and the Registrar in the District Court were absolutely right in dismissing her applications.

24.  We dismiss the summonses in CAMPs 124/2020 and 178/2020 and refuse to grant leave to appeal.

25.  As regards CAMP 170/2020, the RCA was correct in pointing out that leave should have been but was not sought from the court below.

26.  Moreover, Mimmie Chan J is plainly right in her reasons for rejecting Ms Leung’s application to her. 

27.  We therefore dismiss CAMP 170/2020. 

28.  In our judgment in CAMP 153/2020, [2020] HKCA 893, we invited submissions on whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”) and Restricted Application Order (“RAO”) under Practice Direction 11.3 should be made against Ms Leung in respect of her proceedings arising from cases involving Mr Leung. 

29.  We direct the Secretary for Justice to take account of the developments in these proceedings in the preparation of their submissions.  To accommodate the same, we shall grant leave to the representative of the Secretary for Justice to inspect the files of these proceedings.  Ms Leung may also include references to these proceedings in her submissions on RPO and RAO.

30.  In the meantime, to prevent the continuation of the abuse of the court process and waste of judicial resources, we make an interim order restraining Ms Leung from filing any proceedings and applications in the Court of Appeal on matters arising from proceedings involving Mr Leung pending the determination on RPO and RAO.  If she insists on the filing of any papers, those papers will be forwarded to the RCA to be expunged from the court files with a direction that she can collect the same within 7 days, failing which they will be disposed of without being read by the Court.