LAU CHI YUEN JOSEPH v. HO PUI TSUN PETER

HCA 571/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 571 OF 2013

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  On 13 January 2014 Master Leung entered summary judgment against the defendant for the sum of HK$6.5 million.

2.  The defendant gave Notice of Appeal against the Master’s judgment, and the appeal came before me on 15 May last year.  The defendant did not attend.  No explanation has been given, and I dismissed the appeal.

3.  On 5 June of last year, Master Wong made a consent order on the application of solicitors for the plaintiff and solicitors for the defendant whereby the amount of the judgment would be paid by instalments, and a schedule setting out the dates and the amounts was presented to the court and formed the substance of the order.

4.  It is apparent that there was either complete non-compliance by the defendant or substantial default on his part in making the payments to which he, through his solicitors, had consented.

5.  No appeal has ever been brought against my decision of 15 May of last year.  No application has been made to set aside the consent order, and it is not surprising. 

6.  On 27 January of this year, a bankruptcy petition against the defendant was applied for and there was to be a hearing of that petition on 30 March of this year.  On 24 March of this year, the defendant gave notice to act in person. 

7.  In late March of this year, the defendant applied to set aside the original judgment of Master Leung, a matter of a few days before the hearing of the petition. 

8.  That application has now come before me. 

9.  The defendant has tried to suggest that he thought today’s hearing was merely a callover hearing for directions.  But his written submissions handed into the court yesterday makes absolutely no suggestion or comment to suggest that he thought that this was going to be other than a hearing of his summons.   

10.  He has still not put forward any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing of the appeal before me, and any time for appealing my decision has long passed.  Furthermore, there has been no explanation in any form for the consent order which gave him the opportunity to meet the judgment by instalments. 

11.  I am satisfied that it is only the threat of a bankruptcy order which has caused him to take out further proceedings and, in my view, waste time and expense. 

12.  There is absolutely no merit in his application.  It strikes me as a cynical effort to attempt to postpone the inevitable enforcement of the debt against him by way of bankruptcy proceedings. 

13.  He has asked for further time today, but has not attempted to give any satisfactory reason why I should proceed other than on his written submissions which clearly have been prepared by a lawyer’s hand and which give no indication of any need for any further time or preparation.

14.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application with costs. 

15.  I think this is an appropriate case for the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff who has had to instruct counsel for this application.  

16.  In my view, this is a vexatious piece of litigation by the defendant, completely without merit or justification.  It is a timewasting exercise, and he must pay the costs on an indemnity basis, to be taxed.