YUNG MEI CHUN v. CHAN SING CHUEN

HCMP 1178/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1178 OF 2009

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 4126 OF 2007)

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Hon Tang VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  By summons dated 22 September 2009, the plaintiff applied:

“(1)  To set aside (i) the Judgment of HCMP 1178 of 2009 dated 4 September 2009 and (ii) the Orders of HCMP 1178 of 2009 dated 14 September 2009.”

2.  The judgment dated 4 September 2009 refers to our judgment of that date dismissing the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal against the order of District Judge Lok dated 11 June 2009.

3.  In the 4 September 2009 judgment we also made an order under O. 59 r. 2A(8) that the plaintiff may not under r. 2A(7) request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.

4.  The order dated 14 September 2009 refers to the order made by Yeung JA in response to the plaintiff’s application for an oral hearing under r. 2C, and is in the following terms:

    “The application for leave to appeal had been dismissed by two Judges of Appeal and an order under Rule 2A(8) of Order 59 was made.  Plaintiff is not entitled to ask for an oral hearing in a fresh application under Rule 2C.  The application is dismissed.”

5.  Having regard to these decisions, this application is a clear abuse of process.  We dismiss the summons dated 22 September 2009 accordingly.

6.  We will not repeat what we have said in our judgment of 4 September 2009.  It appears from the events described in that judgment that the plaintiff has abused, and is likely to continue abusing the court’s process by persistently making unwarranted applications to the court.  We therefore in exercise of our inherent jurisdiction make a provisional order prohibiting the plaintiff from making any further application to this Court in HCMP 1178/2009, save with leave of Tang VP (or another judge designated by the Chief Judge, High Court).  Ng Yat Chi v China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.

7.  If the plaintiff wishes to make representation to the court regarding the intended restricted application order, she must lodge her submission in writing with the court within 14 days after the handing down of this judgment, in which event (or in the event that no such submission is lodged within the time limit), the court will decide the matter accordingly.