CHUM HON-CHI v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. Since the material facts are the same, we propose to deal with both appeals together. These relate to orders made by Liu JA on 24th April 1997 striking out the notices of appeal in both appeals and dismissing them with costs to the respondent.

2. The material facts are that the appellants made claims for compensation in the context of premises resumed by the Crown. In due course both received awards from the lands Tribunal. They were dissatisfied with these and applied for review. only to have the awards affirmed. In July 1996 they lodged notices of appeal.

3. The appeals came before another division of this Court presided over by Litton V-P. That court accepted that the notices of appeal were both defective as they did not disclose any point of law. But the court using its best endeavours to assist the appellants, who were unrepresented, identified one point of law from the written submissions in one appeal and two points of law in the other. On that basis the court refused the respondent's application to strike out and granted leave to amend the notices of appeal to include those points of law which the court helpfully drafted.

4. Five months later, in November 1996, the respondent applied for unless orders. Liu JA made such orders requiring the notices of appeal to be amended by 12th March 1997 or struck out. On the day before, 11th March, the appellants produced to the court registry and had stamped their skeleton arguments which they had presented to Litton V-P and also a notice to set down the appeal, but they did not lodge amended notices of appeal for which they had been given leave. Not surprisingly therefore, Liu JA refused to accept the skeleton arguments as amended notices of appeal. He struck out the notices of appeal and dismissed the appeals. I pause to say that it is from those orders that the appellants appeal to this Court.

5. A few days after Liu JA made that order, the appellants went to the Clerk of Court and apparently discovered for the first time that what they needed were amended notices of appeal. These, they have now prepared as supplementary notices of appeal. They run to four pages each and contain much irrelevant matter. But they also contain the grounds identified and helpfully drafter by the Court of Appeal in July 1996. It seems to us that they failed to file their notices of appeal because they misunderstood the position. Although they have been somewhat dilatory it seems to us right that they be allowed o pursue the grounds for which they had obtained leave.

6. Mr Tam for the respondent initially resisted that course but in the end was resigned to accepting it. He asks, however, for the costs of today. The appellants do not resist and indeed agree this. Accordingly, to facilitate the final disposal of these appeals which have been dragging on, we order with the agreement of the appellants that the notices of appeal that were originally filed in July 1996 stand amended by having the grounds specified therein struck out and in each case substituted by the appropriate grounds drafted by the Court of Appeal in July. We also order that the respondent is to have his costs of today in both appeals.