THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG AND ANOTHER

CACV 333/2018

[2018] HKCA 921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 333 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ 4497/2017)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.  On 17 September 2018, we handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 600; “the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s summons dated 9 August 2018 and striking out the appeal on the ground of abuse of process.

2.  On 28 September 2018, the applicant took out a summons (“the Summons”) for leave to re-open and re-visit the Judgment on the ground that the relevant order had not been sealed. She also applied for leave “to adduce evidence and to intervene as a party under Order 5 rule 6”.

3.  A document entitled “Statements in support of grounds” was attached to the Summons.  In that document, the applicant contends that:

(a) Leave to appeal should be granted in the present case in order to “secure the just expeditious and economical disposal of the appeal”. With reference to Order 58 rule 2(2)(a) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H) and Order 59 rule 2B(4) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), the applicant argued that leave to appeal should be given to her by this Court; and

(b) The directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 July 2018 (“RCA’s Directions”) were wrong and should be set aside.

4.  The applicant reiterated her contentions in her written submissions lodged with the court on 12 October 2018.

5.  The Court is not functus before the sealing of its order and it retains a discretion to re-open the case even after a judgement has been handed down.  There must be good reason in the interest of justice for the case to be so re-opened before the Court will exercise such exceptional power.  Finality of the process is an important consideration and it cannot be right to allow another round of post-judgment submissions simply because a party put in a summons for re-opening the case.  Thus, it has been said that strong reasons are required and the power would only be exercised in exceptional cases: see Re Kennedy [2007] 5 HKC 75 at [4]. 

6.  Having read the submissions of the applicant, we are not persuaded that this is a case calling for the re-opening of the appeal.  We are not satisfied that she has any reasonable ground to challenge the conclusions in our main judgment.  

7.  In our judgment, the Summons is totally devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.