YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHONG KING PO, SALLY AND OTHERS

DCCJ 7079 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7079 OF 2003

______________________

______________________

DCCJ 7080 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7080 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 7081 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7081 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 7184 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7184 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 7185 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7185 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 7257 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7257 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 7258 / 2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7258 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

DCCJ 2702 / 2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2702 OF 2004

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

(CONSOLIDATED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE A. TO DATED 3^RD NOVEMBER 2004)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.  This is the Plainitff’s application for leave to appeal against my Decision handed down on 21 January 2005 dismissing her appeal from the Order of Master Ko dated 10 January 2005 by which the Defendants’ Summons for striking out the Amended Statement of Claim was to be adjourned to be heard by a judge on a date to be fixed. The appeal was heard on 14 January 2005 before me. The relevant background and facts have been summarized in my Reasons for Decision.

2.  The Plaintiff appeared in person in this application. Her major complaints were that I had refused to consider her letters dated 15 and 19 January sent in after the hearing before me on 14 January 2005; and that the application for striking out her Amended Statement of Claim had been heard and refused by His Honour Judge To and therefore should not be heard before a judge again.

3.  According to the Plaintiff, the two letters were to draw my attention to her affirmation filed on 24 May 2004 for the hearing before His Honour Judge To dated 4 June 2004; and that the course of action in DCCJ 2707 / 2004 is also malicious falsehood, not a different cause of action as alleged by the Defendants, and this had been considered by His Honour Judge To as well.

4.  Miss Lam appearing for the Defendants said that DCCJ 2707 / 2004 was only filed a few days before the hearing by His Honour Judge To on 4 June 2004 and had not been considered in his Decision.

5. After hearing parties, I find that the Plaintiff has no realistic prospect of succeeding on the intended appeal. The content of the two letters focused on His Honour Judge To’s decision. This was the cardinal issue raised by the Plaintiff at the hearing before me on 14 January 2005. My attention had been adequately drawn to the same. The letters only reiterated the Plaintiff’s submission made at the hearing. They would not have affected my decision one way or the other.  In light of the volume of documents involved and legal issues to be argued, I am satisfied that the Defendants’ summons should be heard by a judge with time set aside adequately for parties to put forward their arguments fully.

6. Moreover, Master Ko has the discretion in law to refer any matter to a judge as he deems fit, and no appeal shall lie from his such order by virtue of Order 32, rule 17(2) of the Rules of the District Court. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff has no right to appeal at the outset.

7. For reasons set out in the above, the Application for leave to appeal against my decision is refused. Costs of this application be to the Defendants to be taxed if not agreed.