XCHRX CHAN SAI LUN HENRY v. CHAN WAI WAH, LILY ANN AND ANOTHER

HCA14052/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.14052 OF 1999

--------------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. This is an application by Miss Chan Wai Wah, Lily Ann (the defendant in HCA14052/1999 and 2nd defendant/appellant in HCAP2/1993) to set aside my decision on 15 September 2000 which I have made in her absence. I have delivered my ruling there and then. I considered that it is an abuse of the process of court to make that application to revoke the grant of Probate. There was absolutely no ground for the application as the Grant was made in solemn form as declared by Barnett J on 1 May 1998 after 28 days of trial. Thereafter, her appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. I, therefore, dismissed her application.

2. She then took out a summons dated 23 September 2000, trying to set aside my decision. Thereafter, she took out another summons on 3 October 2000, applying for leave to withdraw the aforesaid summons filed on 23 September 2000, but at the same time she said that my order on 15 September 2000 which was decided in her absence should be set aside "with the hearing of the summonses inter partes to follow immediately, or in the alternative, a supplemental order on new facts regarding the summonses be made".

3. She stated that she relied on the Rules of the High Court, Order 32, rule 5(1), Order 32/1-6/21 of the White Book, Order 32, rule 6 and also on the inherent jurisdiction of the court. I consider that there is absolutely no ground for her applications.

4. Further she also took out a summons on 7 November 2000, to be heard immediately by me to-day, purportedly under Order 38, rule 13. At short notice she wanted the Probate Registry to produce certain documents, including the original Will, and also the Commissioner for Estate Duty to produce certain documents. All these have been considered by Barnett J and in particular the issue of her allegation of misappropriation of assets and non-disclosure to Estate Duty Office had been ruled by Barnett J as irrelevant (see pp.3 and 4 of his judgment).

5. From the papers before me, I could not see any ground at all which can support her application.

6. Under HCA14052/99, there was an appeal taken out by Madam Chan on 5 November against the master's decision refusing Madam Chan's application to stay the execution on the writ of possession. Again I find that she has absolutely no ground of appeal. The Order for possession had been made in the action and her appeal therefrom was again dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Her appeal now from the Master is just a delaying tactics and consequently an abuse of the process of court.

7. Our courts have limited resources. We are responsible to the taxpayers. Everything here is paid by the taxpayer and we are responsible to all the citizens in Hong Kong, even though some of them do not have to pay any taxes. All these applications will cost a lot of manpower and expenses of the court but for no avail. There must come a time when all these conduct and behaviour should be stopped. Otherwise it will be impossible to do justice to other litigants. For all these reasons, all applications and appeal of the 2nd defendant Madam Chan are dismissed with costs to the other parties. Further, I would impose an additional order that there should be no further application by Madam Chan without the leave of the master of the High Court and no appeal from the master without the leave from a judge of the Court of First Instance upon the ex parte application of Madam Chan. The other party must be protected from her abusive conduct and behaviour.

8. I also ask the Department of Justice to consider seriously to apply to the court to adjudge Madam Chan as a vexatious litigant when Madam Chan is instituting any further legal proceedings on the same subject matter and in particular against the same plaintiff herein.