SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YUEN OI YEE LISA

HCMP2390/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2390 OF 2008

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

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

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

1.  On 9 September 2010, I heard and dismissed with costs four summonses issued by the respondent. In respect of the dismissal of paragraph 3 of the summons filed on 6 September 2010, the respondent made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was refused. I now reduce into writing my oral reasons for the dismissal of the said summons and the refusal of leave to appeal.

The summons dated 6 September 2010

2.  The summons dated 6 September 2010 sought three orders: 

(1) To subpoena Mr Justice Lam and Mr Justice Cheung: paragraph 1. 

(2) Leave to file and serve six affirmations of the respondent made on 12, 16 and 22 July, 27 August and 1 and 3 September 2010: paragraph 2.     

(3) To annual the bankruptcy order made against the respondent in HCB 8954 of 2007: paragraph 3.   

3.  In respect of the relief sought in paragraph 1, it is plainly out of order.  No sound reason was advanced for the application. As for the relief sought in paragraph 2, the six affirmations referred to were filed and used by the respondent for the purpose of various interlocutory applications made in these proceedings.   There had been directions on the filing of evidence for the purpose of the substantive application in these proceedings and the parties had already filed and served their evidence accordingly.  There is neither need nor basis for including these affirmations filed in interlocutory proceedings in the evidence for the substantive committal application.   

Paragraph 3 of the 6 September 2010 summons

4.  In the case of paragraph 3 of the summons, it is both procedurally irregular and an abuse of these proceedings.  Application for annulment of bankruptcy order ought to be made in the bankruptcy proceedings in which the bankruptcy order was made.  There is no basis for an annulment application to be made in these proceedings.  The fact that HCB8954 of 2007 was mentioned or referred to in the evidence filed in these proceedings does not make a difference.  The respondent had previously made similar application in these proceedings and it had been refused.

5.  The respondent drew assistance from a letter dated 20 October 2008 from the court.  This was in reply to her letter dated 10 October 2008 addressed to the Chief Judge of High Court.  In the court’s reply letter, the respondent was informed that I was the Listing Judge.  On the basis of this letter, the respondent said that there was a direction from the Chief Judge, justifying her application to this court in these proceedings for annulment of her bankruptcy order.  The letter plainly does not amount to any direction, let alone a direction enabling an annulment application to be made before this court in these proceedings. 

6.  For these reasons, I dismissed the summons with costs to the applicant against the respondent.                

Application for leave to appeal

7.  In respect of the oral application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of paragraph 3 of the summons, two arguments were advanced. The first is that the two matters are closely related in that some of the papers in HCB8954 of 2007 had been included in the trial bundles in this case. As said above, this is not a reason for seeking an annulment of the bankruptcy order in these committal proceedings.  Secondly, the respondent referred to a letter from the Department of Justice informing her that her complaints had been referred to the prosecution division. I am unable to see the relevance of the letter.

8.  In order to obtain leave to appeal, it must be demonstrated that there are arguable grounds of appeal.  The respondent comes nowhere near this.  The application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.