FUBON BANK (HONG KONG) LTD formerly known as INTERNATIONAL BANK OF ASIA LTD v. CHOW PO SHAN

HCMP 742/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 742 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 2879 OF 2014)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT
________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Deputy District Judge Wan [“the Judge”] on 9 January 2015 in DCCJ 2879 of 2014. The Judge granted monetary judgement in the sum of $135,613.77 (with interest and costs) on the application for summary judgment by the Plaintiff in respect of credit card debts and term loan due from the Defendant.

2.  The Defendant applied for leave to appeal against that judgment and such leave was refused by the Judge on 6 March 2015.

3.  The Defendant now renews her application for leave before us.

4.  It would appear from the Defendant’s affidavit of 31 March 2015 that she repeated her defence run before the Judge: due to the non-production of the loan agreement and failure to call the relevant witness, the Plaintiff could not establish its entitlement to the claims. 

5.  The arguments were duly considered by the Judge and in his judgments of 9 January and 6 March 2015, he explained why such defence cannot establish a bona fide defence on the part of the Defendant.  The Judge also pointed out that there was sufficient evidence of the indebtedness due to the Plaintiff in the affidavit evidence filed by the Plaintiff for the purpose of application for summary judgment.

6.  We are of the view that the Judge was correct in so holding.  The Defendant had failed to show why leave to defend should be granted to her. 

7.  In the circumstances, it is plain to us that the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and there is no other reason in the interest of justice to grant leave to appeal.  The Defendant’s intended appeal does not satisfy the requirement in Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance.

8.  We therefore refuse to grant leave and dismiss the Defendant’s summons of 31 March 2015.

9.  We are also of the view that the application is totally without merit.  Pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2A(8), we make an order that no party may request our refusal of leave to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

10.  We also order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.  Solicitors for the Plaintiff have not lodged a statement of costs.  We provisionally fix the costs at $20,000.  If any party wishes to vary such provisional assessment, he or she can write to this court within 7 days.