WYWS ALSO KNOWN AS SYWW v. CJB

FCMC 12719/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO 12719 OF 2008

________________________

________________________

___________

RULING
___________

1.  This is the respondent’s application for leave to appeal following the dismissal of his application for a rehearing on the ground of fraud by the petitioner in a nullity case.

2.  As I have already detailed the background to the respondent’s application in my Ruling dated 6 January 2015, it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.

3.  In support of his application for leave to appeal, in his usual fashion, the respondent has provided as many grounds as he possibly can.  Amongst the others, he said that my decision is cold-hearted and cruel and is a punishment for having questioned the legality of the hearings before her Honour Judge Chu (as she then was).  He also submitted that he is of poor means and is suffering from some diseases that cost him substantial medication costs.  He even claimed that the Hong Kong Family Court has shown a clear contempt for justice, that the High Court has backed up the illegal actions of her Honour Judge Chu and this shows that the High Court is as corrupt as the Family Court; that the Hong Kong courts have no right to go against the US laws, and that the court has displayed no objectivity.  He even said that because his rights have been violated, the Americans have the right to show their discontent by refusing to buy Hong Kong products and boycott companies that do business with both Hong Kong and China.

4.  I do not think I need to exhaust all his grounds here.  Suffice for me to say is that after having carefully gone through the grounds, I do not find any meritorious ground that allows the respondent a reasonable prospect of success, the threshold set out in section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, Cap 336.

5.  As I have said in paragraph 33 of the Ruling dated 6 January 2015, the respondent’s application for leave to appeal against the decree absolute has already been dealt with by the Court of Appeal, and as such, this is final.  His application was dismissed by me because what he sought was to re-litigate the nullity issue through the back door, and hence it was doomed to fail.  I find that his application was an abuse of the court process, and this was the very reason why I dismissed it.  The respondent’s grounds failed to address these reasons, and this is why I say he does not have a reasonable prospect of success.  Furthermore, it is clear that he is trying to re-litigate the issue by this application.

6.  There is also no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.

7.  For the reasons aforesaid, the respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the petitioner, to be taxed if not agreed.

8.  Finally, the respondent has also attached to his application a document called “Petition for Ancillary Benefits” and another document called “Petition for Enforcement of Visitation Rights”.  If the respondent wants to apply for ancillary relief or access to the daughter, what he should do is to properly take out his applications in the Registry by way of a summons.