WONG TAK MING v. 趙江龍 carrying on business in the firm name of CHAPTER (CHINA) LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 1378/2017

[2018] HKCFI 1866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1378 OF 2017

______________

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the Order of Master Catrina Lam dated 4 May 2018 striking out his claim against D2. This morning, the appellant turned up in person. Only then when the Court became aware that late yesterday afternoon, the plaintiff filed a notice to act in person. Having explained to him his right under legal professional privilege, I asked the plaintiff what his intention was in relation to the further prosecution of the appeal. He then informed me that he had in fact petitioned for bankruptcy.

2.  I stood the matter down and invited the plaintiff’s ex-legal representatives to attend to explain the situation to Court.  Mr Chong turned up.  He told me that in fact, sometime in June 2018, the plaintiff had been adjudicated bankrupt.  On 30 July 2018, his instructing solicitors, having communicated with the trustees in bankruptcy, were informed that they did not intend to proceed with the appeal.

3.  Upon the plaintiff’s adjudication as being bankrupt, any cause of action he may have against D2 passed to the trustees in bankruptcy.  That must include the right to proceed with the appeal.  I have considered para 15/7/10 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2018.  I have considered also the cases cited therein.  I order the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.  On the question of costs, I was referred by Mr Lam, counsel for D2, to the Court of Appeal decision in First Asia Finance Limited v Tsoi Tin Kwan Fanny CACV 149/2015 (unreported, 18 September 2017).  I order costs of the appeal be to D2 to be taxed if not agreed, on an indemnity basis.

5.  Whilst I thank Mr Chong for showing up to explain to Court the situation, I comment that the plaintiff and his then legal representativesought to—I repeat—ought to have informed the Court of the latest development in the matter.  That is not just common courtesy, but important in saving public funds.  The time this Court spent on reading 54 pages of submissions and 26 authorities from the plaintiff’s then legal representatives (not to mention also the submissions from D2’s team) could have been better spent.