TSO MAN KUEN JASMINE v. POON CHUK HUNG

DCCJ 1379/2023

[2026] HKDC 1039

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1379 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  The plaintiff, acting in person, has taken out 7 Summons between November and December 2025 which have been dealt with by the Amended Order of this court dated 6 January 2026 (“the Amended Order”).

2.  In short, all the Summons were dismissed except for the applications (dated 8, 15 and 24 December 2025 respectively)  to set aside 4 costs orders (paragraph 3 of the Amended Order, “the 4 Costs Orders”), for which the court has given directions for filing and serving of affirmations and for the hearing to be adjourned to 16 April 2026.

3.  The plaintiff wrote to the court on 2 February 2026 seeking, amongst others, a time extension. On 23 February 2026, the court gave the following directions:

a.  Unless the Plaintiff, by 4 pm on 9 March 2026, file and serve an affirmation with exhibits including the relevant 4 court orders…with content of such affirmation not exceeding 10 single-sided pages with paragraphs and letters in font size 12, the plaintiff shall be debarred (from)  doing so (“the Unless Order”);

b.  If paragraph …(a)  is complied with, the defendant shall file and serve an affirmation in opposition…on or before 30 March 2026;

c.  …

d.  No further affirmation be allowed to be filed or served except with leave of the court; and

e.  Hearing fixed…on 16 April 2026 be vacated. The application be instead be dealt with by way of paper disposal.

4.  The following is the decision of the court.

5.  The plaintiff has since filed 6 affirmations in court: Affirmation dated 5 March 2026, 2 Affirmations dated 9 March 2026, Affirmation dated 20 March 2026, Affirmation dated 16 April 2026, and Affirmation dated 19 May 2026.

6.  The Affirmation dated 5 March 2026, for the most part, is irrelevant to the dispute regarding the 4 Costs Orders: it refers to a “police report (1 March 2026)…in which unknown persons…entered the Plaintiff’s flat. This serves as the evidence that the Plaintiff’s key in the current flat has been stolen…”

7.  The content, as far as any reference to any costs orders are concerned, only listed the 4 Costs Orders (but also included a cost order apparently given in the High Court)  stating that such orders “wrongly shifted the defendant’s solicitors’ fees to the plaintiff.” The plaintiff then suggested that various court orders and defendant’s pleadings should be struck out (“due to the defendant’s decisive lies” etc.).

8.  The plaintiff then went on about the “police report” and then ended with a “summary” which appeared to be arguing about the merit of the main claim (referring to the Defence regarding an alleged set-off agreement). None of which are relevant to the 4 interlocutory Costs Orders.

9.  Further, the plaintiff appeared to have exhibited a copy of her electronic on-line report to the police including 3 photos of a “Wi-Fi egg”. None of which is relevant to the 4 Costs Orders.

10.  This affirmation failed to abide to the Unless Order in that it failed to exhibit the 4 Costs Orders.

11.  Indeed, the defendant did not file and serve any affirmation in opposition. He did not need to under the circumstances.

12.  Further, notwithstanding the clear order of the court (see paragraph 3(d)  above), the Plaintiff filed 5 additional affirmations without leave. The two dated 9 March 2026 running to some 44 pages and 37 pages respectively which were well beyond the restriction imposed in the Unless Order. In addition, the plaintiff filed two more affirmations beyond the time limit imposed by the court (the one dated 16 April 2026 running to 118 pages and the one dated 19 May 2026 running to 22 pages). In view of such non-compliance, all these were not considered by the court.

13.  In conclusion, the court found that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the Unless Order dated 23 February 2026. Further, even if the court is to overlook this and consider the evidence advanced by the plaintiff, it finds that none is relevant to the issue of the dispute in the 4 Costs Orders. The plaintiff has failed to advance any relevant evidence or arguments besides a bare assertion that such orders “wrongly shifted the defendant’s solicitors’ fees to the plaintiff.”

14.  As such, the court orders that the applications of the plaintiff dated 8 December 2025, 15 December 2025 and 24 December 2025 respectively to set aside the 4 Costs Orders be dismissed with costs be to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed.