LEUNG KIT HING, DORIS v. ELECTORAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION

HCAL 1016/2017

[2020] HKCFI 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1016 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  The procedural history leading to the summonses now before the court has been set out in the court’s written decision handed down on 16 September 2020, and shall not be repeated here. By that decision, the court made an order (“the Order”) dismissing two summonses referred to as the “May Summons” and “September Summons” taken out by the Applicant with costs to the Putative Respondent.

(1)  By the May Summons, the Applicant sought to strike out and dismiss a bill of costs and notice of commencement of taxation issued by the Department of Justice on behalf of Putative Respondent.

(2)  By the September Summons, the Applicant applied to adjourn the hearing of the May Summons sine die with liberty to restore.

2.  On 29 September 2020, the Applicant issued a summons (“the First Summons”) seeking leave to appeal the Order.

3.  On 5 October 2020, the court gave directions for the First Summons to be disposed of on paper.

4.  On 14 October 2020, the Applicant issued another summons (“the Second Summons”) seeking to set aside the directions given by the court on 5 October 2020, apparently on the ground that she did not require the court’s leave to appeal the Order.

5.  On 15 October 2020, the court informed the Applicant that it was prepared to grant her leave to withdraw the First Summons. The court also made an order that no further summons might be issued by the Applicant relating to the same subject matter without leave of the court.

6.  On 16 October 2020, the Applicant wrote to the court stating that the Second Summons was to set aside the court’s directions given on 5 October 2020, and maintained that she would not withdraw the First Summons.

7.  On 16 October 2020, the court, in view of the Applicant’s aforesaid stance, gave further directions to the parties for the Second Summons also to be dealt with on paper.

8.  On 22 October 2020, the Applicant wrote to the court maintaining that the First Summons did not need to be withdrawn, and stating that she also wished to set aside the directions given by the court on 16 October 2020.

9.  On 28 October 2020, the court informed the Applicant that it would not engage in any further correspondence but would determine the First and Second Summonses in accordance with the directions previously given by the court (on 5 October 2020 and 16 October 2020 respectively).

10.  On 30 October 2020, the Applicant issued yet another summons (“the Third Summons”) seeking to set aside the court’s directions given on 16 October 2020.

11.  This is the court’s decisions on the First, Second and Third Summonses.

12.  In relation to the First Summons, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal against the Order. The Applicant repeats her allegations regarding service of documents by the Department of Justice, which was dealt with in paragraph 26 of the court’s decision dated 16 September 2020.  The intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.  If leave to appeal is required, there is no reason to grant the Applicant leave to appeal.  If the Applicant does not need leave to appeal (as she contends), the First Summons would be misconceived.  The First Summons is dismissed.

13.  In respect of the Second Summons, there is no proper basis on which the Applicant may seek to set aside the directions given by the court on 5 October 2020 relating to the disposition of the First Summons.  The Second Summons is dismissed.

14.  Finally, in respect of the Third Summons, there is likewise no basis on which the Applicant may seek to set aside the directions given by the court on 16 October 2020 relating to the disposition of the Second Summons.  The Third Summons is dismissed.

15.  In short, the First, Second and Third Summonses are all dismissed.  The Department of Justice has not filed any costs statements pursuant to the court’s directions.  Accordingly, the court makes no order as to the costs of the three applications.