CHOY BING WING v. PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE)

HCA 1994/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1994 OF 2012

_______________

_______________

HCMP 1097/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1097 OF 2013

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1994 OF 2012)

_______________

_______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1. I have before me two applications of the plaintiff (Mr Choy Bing Wing), one in each action, seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against two orders that I made on 22 October 2015 dismissing the plaintiff’s respective appeals against (i) a charging order absolute made by Master M Wong on 7 August 2015 in HCA 1994/2012, and (ii) another charging order absolute made by Master Hui on 25 September 2015 in HCMP 1097/2013.

Discussion

2. The background facts of these two matters and the reasons for dismissing the plaintiff’s said appeals can be seen from my earlier written decision handed down on 22 October 2015 (“the Decision”).  I do not propose to repeat them here.

3. In the two present summonses both dated 3 November 2015, the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal on the ground that important questions or points of law are involved in the proposed appeals.  Two questions are identified in paragraph 1 of each summons, as follows:-

“ (a) Whether a Judge may use the words ‘… appears to be correct …’ in his fact-finding process carried out from judgments placed in front of him and the falsities already pointed out to him;

(b) Whether in a case of perjury alleged against a party, the Judge may ignore to resolve the said question, the perjury without denial and go ahead to make a decision with the crime committed and concealed.”

4. In relation to the first question, what I said in paragraph 8 of the Decision was that “[t]he statement that the plaintiff had been sentenced to prison twice appears to be correct as a matter of fact.”  That statement was made in response to the plaintiff’s complaint raised in his appeals which I summarised in paragraph 6 of the Decision as follows:-

“ The plaintiff’s skeleton submission consists of five paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the plaintiff states that ‘[t]he enforcement of court’s orders obtained by fraud by the Defendant for the concealment of a crime, perjury, may not be enforced by competent courts.’ At the hearing of the appeals, the plaintiff explained that what he meant was that the defendant falsely alleged that he (the plaintiff) had been convicted of some criminal offences and imprisoned whereas all that happened was that he had been committed for contempt of court on two occasions (in HCMP 4694/2003 and HCMP 1313/2010) for which he was sentenced to 6 months and 4 months’ imprisonment respectively. The plaintiff said that being found guilty of contempt of court was not the same as having committed any criminal offence.”

5. The plaintiff takes exception to the words “… appears to be correct …” in paragraph 8 of the Decision.  I am unable to see why those words are objectionable in the context.

6. In so far as the second question is concerned, I do not consider that there is any proper basis for the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant was guilty of perjury or other criminal conduct or concealment.  In any event, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Decision, I do not consider that the alleged perjury or concealment (even if they can be proved) has any bearing on the two charging orders absolute made by Master M Wong and Master Hui respectively.

7. The other two paragraphs of the plaintiff’s summonses merely assert that (i) substantial and grave injustice has been created by the court, and (ii) public interest and justice require leave to be granted.  They do not add anything to the matters raised by the plaintiff under paragraph 1 of the two summonses.

8. In my view, the proposed appeals have no reasonable prospect of success.  I therefore refuse to grant leave to appeal and dismiss the plaintiff’s two summonses dated 3 November 2015.

Costs

9. The defendant filed two sets of skeleton submissions both dated 27 November 2015, one for each appeal, but did not attend the hearing of the applications, this court having directed that the defendant be excused from attending the hearing (if so advised).  In its skeleton submissions, the defendant asked for summary assessment of its costs in the event of the applications being dismissed.

10. When the court asked the plaintiff whether he had any comment on the costs statements attached to the defendant’s skeleton submissions, the plaintiff said he would refuse to pay any costs but did not make any meaningful comment on the costs statements.

11. I consider the proposed appeals to be groundless and amount to an abuse of the court’s process.  The defendant should be entitled to its costs, to be assessed summarily on an indemnity basis.  I would allow the defendant’s costs in the gross sum of $16,000 in each application, making a total of $32,000.