CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

HCA 1412/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1412 OF 2013

________________________

HCMP 3396/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3396 OF 2015

_______________________

______________________

______________________

(Heard Together)

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Introduction

1.  The background to the present applications has been set out in this court’s judgment in the contempt proceedings HCMP 3396 of 2015 (“Contempt Proceedings”) handed down on 18 November 2016 (“Contempt Judgment”).  In the present judgment, I shall continue to adopt the abbreviations in the Contempt Judgment, unless otherwise indicated.

2.  The 3^rd respondent, Carmen, only reached the age of majority on 20 February 2016 and she had no guardian ad litem acting on her behalf in the Main Action and the Contempt Proceedings prior to her reaching the age of majority.

3.  As stated in the Contempt Judgment, this problem was only raised the day prior to the commencement of the trial in the Contempt Proceedings as a result of which the Contempt Proceedings against Carmen were later adjourned pending her present application.

4.  There are now three applications before this court, one issued on behalf of Carmen to set aside all steps and decisions made on her behalf and/or against her in the Main Action, and two applications issued by Ps respectively in the Main Action and in the Contempt Proceedings for all such steps and decisions to remain valid and any irregularities be cured and regularized.

5.  Ps had also sought that all costs of and incidental to and occasioned by their applications and Carmen’s application be paid by Carmen’s solicitors Messrs Chong & Partners LLP forthwith to Ps on a solicitor and own client basis, to be taxed if not agreed.

6.  Ms Eva Sit appeared for Ps, and Mr Anson Wong SC was Senior Counsel appearing for Carmen with Mr Ross Li.  Mr Alexsander Wong appeared for Carmen’s solicitors Messrs Chong & Partners in relation to the costs orders sought by Ps.

The legal principles

7.  Order 80 rule 2(1) of RHC states as follows :

“(1) A person under disability may not bring, or make a claim in, any proceedings except by his next friend and may not acknowledge service, defend, make a counterclaim or intervene in any proceedings, or appear in any proceedings under a judgment or order notice of which has been served on him, except by his guardian ad litem.”

8.  Under Order 80 rule 1, a person under disability includes a minor.

9.  Order 80 rule 3(6) further states:

“(6) Except where the next friend or guardian ad litem, as the case may be, of a person under disability has been appointed by the Court-

(a) the name of any person shall not be used in a cause or matter as next friend of a person under disability,

(b) service shall not be acknowledged in a cause or matter for a person under disability, and

(c) a person under disability shall not be entitled to appear by his guardian ad litem on the hearing of a petition, summons or motion which, or notice of which, has been served on him, unless and until the documents listed in paragraph (8) have been filed in the Registry.”

10.  Under Order 80 rule 3(8), the documents required to be filed where the person under disability is a minor are :-

(a)   a written consent to be next friend or guardian ad litem, as the case may be, of the person under disability in the cause or matter in question given by the person proposing to be such friend or guardian; and

(b)   a certificate made by the solicitor for the person under disability certifying-

(i) that he knows or believes, as the case may be, that the person to whom the certificate relates is a minor; and

(ii) except where the person named in the certificate as next friend or guardian ad litem, as the case may be, is the Official Solicitor, that the person so named has no interest in the cause or matter in question adverse to that of the person under disability.

11.  It has however been held by the Court of Appeal in Ng Hong Ki and Leung Fong Kiu [2012] 1 HKLRD 435 that, among other things, where steps in proceedings have been taken before lack of capacity due to disability under Order 80 is raised, the court is not powerless to act and does not have to direct the parties to start all over again[1].

12.  It was further held by the Court of Appeal in the above case  that under Order 2 rule 1(1) of RHC, the failure to comply with Order 80 rule 2(1) will be treated as an irregularity and would not be nullified by reason of the non-compliance; and the court has power under Order 2 rule 1(2) to make such order dealing with the proceedings generally as it thinks fit, and the court has power to regularize the position retrospectively provided everyone has acted in good faith and there has been no manifest disadvantage to the person subsequently found to be under disability[2].

13.  It was also held that by the Court of Appeal that the court is not bound to appoint a friend or guardian ad litem even if it is satisfied that the person is under disability, and the court will still need to consider if the appointment is beneficial to that person[3].

14.  There was no real dispute between the parties over the above broad principles.

The Disputed Issues

15.  The main issues in the present application were (1) whether there was lack of good faith on the part of Ps and (2) whether there was a manifest disadvantage to Carmen.

Lack of good faith

16.  Carmen complained that Ps had knowledge that she was a minor and that the procedures under Order 80 must be followed and that knowing that the appointment of a guardian ad litem was necessary, Ps failed to draw the same to the attention of the court, and that Ps’ decision to seek injunction against Carmen was clearly motivated by their repeated failures to elicit the allegedly necessary information from Mr Chun.

17.  As pointed out by Ms Sit, there was in fact no allegation of bad faith made in Carmen’s affirmations. Such allegations were only made in Counsel’s submissions and Ms Sit had complained that Ps did not have a chance to file any evidence in reply.

18.  In any event, having considered all the evidence, I really do not find such allegations were substantiated. My reasons are set out below.

19.  In the Contempt Judgment, I had mentioned that it was only in Mr Chun’s 10 affirmation filed on 22 April 2014 that he disclosed for the first time that he had executed a Deed of Gift on behalf of Wellrun transferring Wellrun’s 100% in Chung Shing HK to Chung Shing Singapore, a company wholly owned by Chung Shing Belize of which the 3 daughters are the 3 sole registered shareholders. Further, he disclosed for the first time that he had transferred US$82m from Wellrun to Chung Shing HK which in turned transferred the sum to two PRC companies.

20.  In other words, Mr Chun had gifted the Wellrun’s interest in Chung Shing HK to the 3 daughters, and this was at the time when Mr Chun was a person under investigation by the SFC. The US $82m formed part of the sale proceeds of Wellrun’s shares in China Metal, and Mr Chun and Wellrun were both obliged under the Chan Order to provide disclosure of full information relating to the whereabouts of the sale proceeds.

21.  It was only when Mr Chun and Wellrun failed to comply with the disclosure order that Ps took out an injunction with disclosure obligations on 2 June 2015, namely Ps’ Summons, against the 3 respondents Judy, Kristy and Carmen based on the Chabra principles.

22.  Mr Wong SC submitted Ps’ decision to seek an injunction against Carmen was “clearly motivated by their repeated failures to elicit the allegedly necessary information from Mr Chun”.  It was indeed in light of Mr Chun’s repeated failure to comply with his disclosure obligations and his sudden disclosure of the Gift to the 3 daughters that Ps’ Summons was issued.  I do not see how this can be said to be a lack of good faith on the part of Ps when the Liquidators were only carrying out their duty to find out the whereabouts of the sum of US$82m.

23.  It was also submitted that Ps had “turned a blind eye” to the protection mechanism under Order 80 of RHC. 

24.  Order 80 rule 16 provides that service on a person under disability shall be as follows:

“(1) Where in any proceedings a document is required to be served personally or in accordance with Order 10, rule 1(2) on any person and that person is a person under disability this rule shall apply.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this rule and to Order 24, rule 16(3) and Order 26, rule 6(3) the document must be served-

(a) in the case of a minor who is not also a mentally incapacitated person, on his father or guardian or, if he has no father or guardian, on the person with whom he resides or in whose care he is;

(b) in the case of a mentally incapacitated person, on the person (if any) who is authorized under Part II of the Ordinance to conduct in the name of the mentally incapacitated person or on his behalf the proceedings in connection with which the document is to be served or, if there is no person so authorized, on the person with whom he resides or in whose care he is;

and must be served in the manner required by these rules with respect to the document in question.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2), the Court may order that a document which has been, or is to be, served on the person under disability or on a person other than a person mentioned in that paragraph shall be deemed to be duly served on the person under disability.

(4) A judgment or order requiring a person to do, or refrain from doing, any act, a notice of motion or summons for the committal of any person, and a writ of subpoena against any person, must, if that person is a person under disability, be served personally on him unless the Court otherwise orders.”

25.  P’s Summons, together with Mr Borelli’s 14^th affirmation and sealed copies of the Injunction Orders referred therein were sent under a letter dated 2 June 2015 from Ps’ solicitors addressed to Carmen’s father Mr Chun on behalf of Carmen, informing Mr Chun that Ps wished to effect personal service of the Injunctions Orders on Carmen and requesting a time and date to be nominated (“02.06.15 Letter”).

26.  In the 02.06.15 Letter, Ps’ solicitors stated clearly that the letter was sent to Mr Chun on behalf of Carmen pursuant to Order 80 rule 16 of the Rules of the High Court[4]. 

27.  Mr Chun had instructed his solicitors Messrs Anthony Siu & Co to reply on 4 June 2015.  Messrs Anthony Siu & Co referred to the 02.06.15 Letter and further in their reply letter, they had had set out the respective ages of the 3 daughters and proposing, among other things, to appoint an independent trustee for them to hold and exercise their rights in their shares in Chung Shing Belize.  As it was not quite clear from this reply as to whether Messrs Anthony Siu & Co were acting for the 3 daughters in relation to Ps’ Summons or not, Ps sought to clarify this on 8 June 2015 followed by another letter on 10 June 2015 setting out various proposals. There appeared to have been no response from Messrs Anthony Siu & Co to these letters.

28.  In any event, the provisions of Order 80 rule 16 were specifically drawn to the attention of Mr Chun on behalf of Carmen and Mr Chun’s solicitors in the 02.06.15 Letter, and Mr Chun and his solicitors should be fully aware of Carmen’s minority and those provisions under Order 80.

29.  The hearing of Ps’ Summons was fixed on 12 June 2015 before Ng J.  On 10 June 2015, Messrs Chong & Partners came into the picture and they wrote to Ps’ solicitors to say they had received instructions to represent the 3 daughters, and a notice to act was duly filed the following day. There was no evidence that Messrs Chong & Partners had not been provided a copy of the 02.06.15 Letter and copies of correspondence between Mr Chun’ solicitors and Ps’ solicitors.

30.  In any event, there was no sufficient evidence that Ps or their solicitors had any reason to believe that Carmen’s solicitors would not be aware of the fact that Carmen was then 17 years old and the provisions of Order 80.

31.  Under Order 80 rule 2(1), Messrs Chong & Partners should not have appeared at the hearing before Ng on behalf of Carmen, or offered the Undertaking on behalf of Carmen, before a guardian ad litem had been appointed for her. 

32.  After the hearing before Ng J, Carmen and her two sisters issued a summons at end of July 2015 seeking leave for their legal title in the shares in Chung Shing Belize to be transferred to Fung as a trustee.  It was clear in that application that Carmen’s solicitors and Counsel were fully aware of her age.

33.  The parties were embroiled in the arguments in respect of this application on behalf of the daughters at the hearing before this court on 17 August 2015.  It is fair to say both Senior Counsel for Ps and Counsel for Carmen had overlooked the provisions of Order 80 at that hearing, notwithstanding they were clearly aware that Carmen was then 17.  In fact, this court had equally overlooked those provisions.

34.  The 17.08.15 Order was subsequently served personally on Carmen with a penal notice, and there was never any issue taken by Carmen on service.

35.  As Ps had referred to Order 80 rule 16 to Mr Chun on behalf of Carmen in the 02.06.15 Letter, Ps cannot really be blamed for what went wrong afterwards, particularly when the 3 daughters had also instructed their own solicitors and also Counsel, and at one stage Senior Counsel, to represent them.

36.  Allegations of bad faith are serious allegations.  Having considered all the evidence, I find that there was really no sufficient evidence that Ps were not acting in good faith.

Manifest Disadvantage to Carmen

37.  Mr Wong SC had submitted that in the present case, Carmen’s position could have been different had a guardian ad litem been appointed for her.

38.  Carmen’s mother, Mrs Chun was the person advising Carmen throughout and in making all the decisions on her behalf.  It was Carmen’s evidence that her mother Mrs Chun had taken various steps including engaging the legal team and Mr Fung on behalf of Carmen without consulting Carmen or showing her the relevant documents, and further Carmen was asked by her mother to give the Undertaking without understanding the terms and implications thereof and that Carmen acknowledged the receipt of the 17.08.15 Order containing the Disclosure Obligations without understanding the precise terms and implications thereof. 

39.  Mrs Chun had filed an affirmation to support her daughters’ case in the Contempt Proceedings but chose not to attend the trial to be cross-examined on oath, and her affirmation was in the end not admitted.

40.  Anyway, Carmen claimed that even though she had signed on the backsheet acknowledging the receipt of the 17.08.15 Order with the penal notice, she did not remember the details of it and did not remember whether there was anyone who had explained to her the contents of that order at the time she signed it.  She claimed that she did not receive the Fung Report until July 2016, nor did she receive the 14.10.15 Letter from Ps’ solicitors complaining of their noncompliance with the Disclosure Obligations.  She did not know that potential consequences of the Contempt Proceedings and that she had put the entire matter into her mother’s hands.  Carmen had also said she trusted her elder sister Judy.

41.  As seen in Lily Cheung v Cheung Wai Kwok & Anor, HCAP 3/2008, unrep, 6 February 2014, it is desirable that the guardian ad litem is a relation, connection or friend of the family[5].  Whatever one may now say with benefit of hindsight, the evidence indicated that Mrs Chun, Carmen’s mother, whom Carmen had trusted, would have been the natural choice as her guardian ad litem at the time in June 2015, as Mrs Chun was also handling all the proceedings on behalf of Judy and Kristy.

42.  It was submitted by Mr Wong SC that had the proceedings been properly constituted, Mrs Chun could not have been appointed as Carmen’s guardian at the outset and handled the proceedings on her behalf, as Mrs Chun had beyond dispute interest in these proceedings and may be in a position of conflict vis-à-vis Carmen, and could not, in all likelihood, have been a proper person to be appointed as Carmen’s guardian.

43.  In this respect, that Mrs Chun is the 2^nd defendant in this action should be known to all those acting for the 3 daughters.  As seen in Lily Cheung, there is no rule that a co-defendant cannot act as a guardian ad litem for another defendant[6].  The issue is not whether Mrs Chun has interest in this action, but whether she has any interest adverse to that of Carmen.

44.  There was no evidence in Carmen’s affidavit as to what interest Mrs Chun had which was adverse to hers. In fact, the evidence showed that throughout this action and the Contempt Proceedings, Mrs Chun had been de facto acting on behalf of the 3 sisters, and if their solicitors had been able to accept instructions from Mrs Chun so far, there would not seem to have been any concern for conflict of interest between Mrs Chun and the 3 daughters, or among the 3 daughters.  In fact, Messrs Chong & Partners have continued to act for Carmen notwithstanding her present application.

45.  Judy, whom Carmen had trusted, could also have been a proper person to be appointed as Carmen’s guardian.  There was no evidence that Judy had any interest which was adverse to Carmen.  In fact, what Carmen had said in her affirmation was almost identical to what Judy had said. Throughout the Main Action, and the Contempt Proceedings, Judy had made affirmations on behalf of herself and her two sisters, and there was no evidence from Carmen whether before or after her coming of age, that she was not bound by any of Judy’s evidence.

46.  In any event, there was no evidence from Carmen as to whom she would have appointed as her guardian ad litem. 

47.  Even if a person other than Mrs Chun or Judy had been appointed to represent Carmen, it was very likely that there would still have been joint representations, which is now the position adopted by Carmen since she came of age and has now received independent legal advice from senior counsel.  There was in any event no evidence that a guardian would have taken a different course from Carmen’s sisters.

48.  It was argued on behalf of Carmen that her position had been severely prejudiced by reason of the following:

(i) Mr Wong SC relied on Leach (A Minor) v Taylor (A Minor) [1996] CLY 928 and submitted that when determining whether to accept an undertaking of a minor, the court must exercise great care to satisfy itself that the minor understands the terms of the same[7], and the court was not made aware of the heightened standard when accepting Carmen’s Undertaking;

(ii) Mr Wong had also referred to Wookey v Wookey, In re S (A Minor) [1991] Fam 121, [1992] CLY 2513 and argued that when seeking an injunction against a minor, the applicant should adduce evidence of the personal circumstances of the minor for the court to consider whether the injunction could be effectively enforced against the same[8] and no evidence of Carmen’s personal circumstances was placed before the court when the 17.08.15 Order was made.

49.  In Leach (A Minor), the Court had held that it could accept an undertaking from a minor of 17, instead of making an injunction against him, having taken great care to satisfy itself that the minor had understood the meaning of an undertaking.  In the present case, Carmen had instructed Counsel to represent her before Ng J and the Undertaking was given through her Counsel.

50.  In June 2015, Carmen was a year 12 student at a well known boarding school in England and taking the A-level examinations. Her English should be of high standard.  Even on her own evidence, Carmen did go with her mother and her two sisters to meet with Fung, her solicitors and her then Counsel in around mid July 2015 and Judy’s evidence was during that meeting, she and Carmen had been advised on the Undertaking and the disclosure order sought by Ps.  Judy later had filed an affirmation on behalf of herself, Kristy and Carmen to confirm the Undertaking given by them.  There was no reason to believe that Carmen did not understand the terms of the Undertaking.

51.  In Wookey v Wookey, In re S (Minor), there were in fact two cases during the appeal.  In the second case In re S (a Minor), it was held that the equitable discretionary remedy of an injunction could be enforced by committal to prison, by sequestration of property or by fine; but there was no power to commit a minor under the age of 17 to prison, and since it was unrealistic to order any sequestration of the property and as S had no money to meet a fine, an injunction against him would be unenforceable. 

52.  In the present case, the evidence before the court at the hearing on 17 August 2015 was that Carmen was one of the registered shareholders of Chung Shing Belize through which held Chung Shing Singapore which in turn held Chung Shing HK which was the recipient of some US$82m.  This is not a case like In re S where the minor had no property.  Further there were no submissions that this court did not have the power to commit a minor under the age of 17 to prison. In any event, by the time of the trial of the Contempt Proceedings, Carmen already reached 18.

53.  As seen from The London Borough of Harrow v G [2004] EWHC 17(QB), if an injunction is one that cannot be properly or effectively enforced, it should not have been granted.  However, the minor concerned in that case was only 13 years old at the time the interlocutory injunction was made. 

54.  There was no evidence and indeed no submissions, even up to the hearing of the present applications, that the 17.08.15 Order could not be effectively enforced against Carmen, and as I have said in the Reasons[9], there was no real opposition to the Disclosure Obligations or the 17.08.15 Order being made at that time.

55.  Mr Wong SC had also relied on Re “L” Minor [1992] WL 12678806 which concerned an appeal by a young man who was aged 17 against a committal order imposed for contempt of court, and he was said to be in breach of a non molestation order, ordering him not to molest a young girl who was made a ward of court.  His grounds of appeal were that (i) the non molestation order was defective as it did not contain a penal notice required by the new rules; (ii) there was no guardian ad item appointed for him at the contempt proceedings; (iii) the form of the application did not specify in detail the breaches as required by the practice.  The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal having regard to the cumulative effect of those 3 errors, but more importantly that the young man did not have the benefit of the advice of a guardian ad litem, and the time at which the young man needed the help of a guardian ad litem was after the original order was made and that someone in that position would have been able to explain to him, even if the penal notice had not been in the correct form, that if he disobeyed the order of the court he might well find himself sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

56.  In fact, in the above case, the non-molestation order had contemplated that a guardian ad litem from the appropriate panel would be appointed for the young man.  Indeed when making the non-molestation order, the judge directed that the young man should be added to the wardship proceedings as a second defendant by a guardian ad litem appointed for that purpose from the appropriate panel.  This was not done.

57.  In my view, the facts of the present case are different.  In the present case, Carmen has all along been legally represented since the Ng Order until the present, and both Senior and Junior Counsel have been instructed to appear on her behalf at various times.  As mentioned earlier, Carmen had attended a conference with her then counsel in around June 2015 when she and Judy had been advised on the Undertaking and the disclosure obligations and that the Undertaking was confirmed by Judy on behalf of Carmen in Judy’s subsequent affirmation.

58.  As I have said earlier, Carmen had never said she was not bound by the evidence filed by Judy on her behalf.  In fact, Carmen had also never said that she was not explained the penal notice endorsed on the 17.08.15 Order.  Carmen was in Hong Kong from 9 July 2015 until late August 2015. She personally signed and acknowledged service of the 17.08.15 Order endorsed with the penal notice on 27 August 2015.  What she said in her affirmation filed herein was “Even though I received a copy of the Order and I have signed on its back sheet acknowledging receipt, I do not remember the details of it.  I do not remember whether there was anyone explained to me the contents of the order at the time I signed it.”  

59.  In fact, during the trial of the Contempt Proceedings, although Judy’s evidence was similarly that she could not remember at the time of the trial what her solicitor’s explanation was, she admitted that she had been explained the penal notice at the time when she was personally served, and that every time her solicitor asked her to sign a document, her solicitor would go through the document with her and had explained the same to her.

60.  Carmen turned 18 on 20 February 2016, 4 days after the Amended Statement was filed in the Contempt Proceedings.  So far, Carmen’s evidence was only that she did not remember, but she did not say that no one had explained the terms of the 17.08.15 Order and the penal notice at the time when she personally signed on the backsheet.

61.  In my view, there was no sufficient evidence that Carmen had not been explained the penal notice at the time when she acknowledged the service of the 17.08.15 Order.  I am therefore of the view that the facts of the present case can be distinguished from Re “L” Minor.

62.  There was no evidence from Carmen was to what “forensic disadvantage or manifest disadvantage she had suffered as a result of her having no guardian ad litem.  There was no evidence from Carmen what procedural steps whether in the present action or in the Contempt Proceedings, she would have taken or would have been advised to take, which would be different from those taken by Judy and Kristy.  Mr Wong SC had said the guardian could have contested Ps Summons in seeking the injunction.  There was no evidence from Carmen to say she had wanted to contest the injunction, contrary to the stance taken by Judy and Kristy.   What Carmen had said was in fact she trusted her mother and Judy.  Carmen was only about 8 months away from 18 at that time.

63.  Looking at the circumstances of this case, even if a guardian ad litem were appointed in June 2015, it would likely to have been her mother or Judy, and even if a person other than Mrs Chun or Judy was appointed, there was no sufficient evidence that any guardian ad litem would have been advised to take a course of action which was different from Judy and Kristy. 

64.  Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that Carmen has been prejudiced in any way by the lack of a guardian ad litem, and that I am of the view that Carmen was sufficiently protected in the Main Action and in the Contempt Proceedings, prior to her reaching 18. 

Restrospective Regularisation

65.  Order 80 is to ensure that a minor litigant is properly protected from her lack of capacity in conducting litigation and not to provide a vehicle to reopen litigation, and as said by Kennedy LJ in Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 1 WLR 1511:

“31 … Provided everyone has acted in good faith and there has been no manifest disadvantage to the party subsequently found to have been a patient at the relevant time I cannot envisage any court refusing to regularize the position. To do otherwise would be unjust and contrary to the overriding objection of the Civil Procedure Rules, but in any given case the ultimate decision must depend on the particular facts. In the context of litigation, rules as to capacity are designed to ensure the plaintiffs and defendants who would otherwise be at a disadvantage are properly protected, and in some cases that parties to litigation are not pestered by other parties who should be to some extent restrained. However, finality in litigation is also important, and the rules as to capacity are not designed to provide a vehicle for reopening litigation, which, having apparently been properly conducted (whatever the wisdom of the individual decision in relation to it), has for long been understood to be at an end[10].”

66.  The Undertaking was given in June 2015, some 18 months ago. The 17.08.15 Order was made some 16 months ago.  Carmen was 18 some 11 months ago.

67.  Since coming of age, Carmen, jointly with Judy and Kristy, had authorized Mr Fung to file his 2^nd affirmation in the Contempt Proceedings on 14 March 2016.  Further on, 21 July 2016, Carmen, jointly with Judy and Kristy, had instructed their solicitors to issue a summons for leave for them to file and serve a further affirmation from Judy and also a further affirmation from their mother to support their defence in the Contempt Proceedings and for the hearing on 26 July 2016, Carmen, together with her sisters, had instructed Senior Counsel appearing on their behalf.  Judy and Mrs Chun duly filed their affirmations on 26 July 2016 on behalf of Carmen.  These were all steps taken by Carmen after she turned 18.

68.  Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that all steps and decisions in this action in so far it had concerned Carmen prior to her reaching 18 had been properly conducted, Ps have acted in good faith and there has been no manifest disadvantage to Carmen.  I am prepared to regularize all irregularities, in respect of steps taken and decisions made on behalf of and/or against Carmen on or before 19 February 2016, retrospectively, notwithstanding Carmen had been a minor without a guardian ad litem.

Conclusion

69.  In light of the above, I dismiss Carmen’s summons issued on 19 August 2016, and grant an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the two summonses issued by Ps on 4 November 2016, respectively in the Main Action and the Contempt Proceedings.

70.  I have indicated at the hearing that costs will be reserved. This matter is to be dealt with on paper unless otherwise directed.  I direct that Ps are to lodge their written submissions on costs within 21 days, and Carmen and Messrs Chong & Partners to lodge theirs within 21 days thereafter.  Leave to Ps to lodge reply submissions within 14 days thereafter.