CITIBANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SHUM YUET MEI

HCMP 1832/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1832 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 5003 and DCCJ 5004 OF 2004)

________________

DCCJ 5003/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5003 OF 2004

_________________

_________________

DCCJ 5004/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5004 OF 2004

________________

BETWEEN

________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________ 

1.  On 6 July 2005 Judge Marlene Ng (the judge) in the District Court dismissed the appeals of the applicants – Chow Chi Lit, Simon and Shum Yuet Mei against the order of Master J Ko who granted summary judgment in favour of Citibank against them. Judge Ng also dismissed their appeals against the costs orders and their counterclaim for infringement of their data privacy.

2.  On 15 August 2005, the judge refused to grant the applicants leave to appeal.

3.  On 29 August 2005, the applicants sought leave from a single judge of the Court of Appeal. Le Pichon JA rejected their application on 27 September 2005.

4.  The applicants renewed their application for leave to appeal against the judge’s orders. Shum Yuet Mei did not appear at the hearing and we dismissed her application in her absence.

5.  The background of the case and the events leading to the dispute had been set out in detail in the judge’s judgment, and we do not find it necessary to repeat them.

6.  Citibank’s claims against the applicant Mr Chow were premised on the outstanding balances of the credit card issued to him.

7.  The applicant’s contentions (that the terms and conditions of the credit cards were unreasonable and not binding; that the subsequent amendments were unfair and unreasonable; that he might not have received the covering letters that accompanied the credit card or notice of subsequent variations of the terms and conditions; that Citibank could not increase the rate of finance charge by including default financial charge and/or levy and late charge) had been carefully analysed by the judge.

8.  We agree with her analysis. The applicant’s assertions are not arguable. We also agree with the judge’s analysis of the applicant’s counterclaim for alleged infringement of data privacy.

9.  The costs orders are matters of discretion for the judge. There were valid bases for the exercise of the discretion

10.  The applicant does not have any arguable defence to Citibank’s claim. His counterclaim has no chance of success. The refusal to grant him leave to appeal against the order of Master J Ko is a correct one.

11.  The applicant’s appeal against the costs order and the order dismissing his counterclaim have no merit either.

12.  There is no valid basis upon which we can grant leave to appeal. His application, including the application for stay of execution is dismissed.