LAU, PING KEE v. BUT, TIN HING AND ANOTHER

HCA 508/2016

[2019] HKCFI 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 508 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 6 November 2018, I dismissed the plaintiff’s application by summons filed on 5 October 2018 seeking leave to appeal against Master Kwang’s orders made on 22 May 2017 and 11 September 2017 out of time.  Hereunder are the reasons for my decision.

2.  On 22 May 2017, upon the application of the defendants, Master Kwang made an order striking out the plaintiff’s statement of claim and dismissing his action against the defendants on the ground that the action constituted an abuse of court process and that the deed of assignment was champertous. He also dismissed the plaintiff’s summons applying for amendment of his statement of claim.  The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendants’ costs which were later assessed in the sum of $260,000 under Master Kwang’s order made on 11 September 2017.

The application

3.  On 5 October 2018, more than a year later, the plaintiff took out a summons seeking leave to appeal against Master Kwang’s orders.  His application was supported by his own affirmation which repeated the grounds of his application in the summons.  In essence, his grounds and supporting facts were that he had not attended to the appeal as he was often out of Hong Kong and only stayed in Hong Kong for two to three days.  He wanted to be granted leave to appeal the master’s decision so that his action and costs could be determined de novo.

4.  At the hearing, I explained to him that he should have given notice of his appeal within 28 days of the decision of the master.  His application was badly out of time.  I told him that to obtain leave to appeal out of time, he had to show credible and good reasons for the delay in commencing the appeal and to demonstrate that his appeal was reasonably arguable or has a realistic prospect of success.  Other than repeating that he was always out of Hong Kong and that his legal team was negligent, he offered no explanation to account for the long delay and advanced nothing which may be described as a ground of appeal, let alone whether it is reasonably arguable or has any realistic prospect of success.  Accordingly, his application was dismissed with costs which I assessed summarily in the sum of $18,000.