LIU YUEN CHUNG, STEVEN v. CHEUNG LO FAT AND OTHERS

HCMP 152/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 152OF 2014

(On an intended Appeal from DCCJ No. 654 of 2013)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Judge Chow [“the Judge”] on 11 October 2013 joining Liu Yuen Chung, Steven as the 10^th Defendant in DCCJ 654 of 2013.

2.  Mr Liu opposed the joinder.  He sought leave to appeal against the order of the Judge.  Leave was refused by the Judge on 3 January 2014. 

3.  Under Order 58 Rule 2(4A) of the Rules of the District Court, a party intending to apply for leave from this court after refusal of leave below must apply within 14 days from the date of the refusal below.  Mr Liu’s application to this court was only filed on 20 January 2014, after the expiration of the 14 days limit.  Thus, he also filed an application for extension of time on 20 January 2014.  His explanation was that the clerk of his solicitors attempted to lodge documents for his application with the incorrect format on 17 January 2013 at 4:15 pm and the Registry rejected the documents.

4.  The order of the Judge is a case management decision and it is interlocutory in nature.

5.  We are of the view that Mr Liu’s intended appeal is absolutely without merit.  We have read the documents he placed before us and the judgments of the Judge.  In the judgments, the Judge has carefully explained why it is appropriate to join Mr Liu as a defendant in the action. It is well settled that this court will not interfere with case management decision unless the lower court has gone clearly wrong and made orders which will clearly involve an injustice or an inability for the trial court to carry out its task, see Li Xiao Yun v China Gas Holdings Ltd HCMP 466 of 2013, 11 March 2013; 厦門新景地集團有限公司v Eton Properties HCMP 13 of 2012, 14 Feb 2012, para 9.

6.  In our judgment, Mr Liu has not demonstrated that the Judge has clearly gone wrong in joining him as a defendant.  We do not accept his submissions on the inadequacy of pleadings or evidence against him.   The Amended Statement of Claim, on its face, has sufficiently pleaded the plaintiffs’ claim against him.  As to the evidence, the court should not examine the evidence in great details at this stage.  We are not persuaded by Mr Chan’s submissions that the Plaintiffs have no evidential basis to mount a case against Mr Liu.  The Judge has set out some relevant evidential material in that regard in the judgment of 3 January 2014.  

7.  We refuse to grant extension of time to Mr Liu to seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Judge.  We are also of the view that his application is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the Rules of High Court that no party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

8.  We also order Mr Liu to pay the costs of the 1^st to 9^th Defendants in the present proceedings (who are the Plaintiffs in DCCJ 654 of 2013).  We provisionally fix such costs at $30,000.  Parties may put in written submissions (not more than 3 pages) within 7 days if they disagree with that provisional assessment.  In that event, we would deal with those submissions on paper.