MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

HCA011507/1997

No. A11507 of 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

________________

BETWEEN
	MUI PO CHU	Plaintiff/Appellant
	AND
	MOI OAK WAH	Defendant/Respondent

________________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Hartmann in Chambers

Dates of Hearing: 27 March 1998

Date of Ruling: 27 March 1998

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. In this matter the Appellant is aggrieved by an order of Master Chung made on the 18th March 1998 which reads as follows :-

"Upon the application by the Plaintiff [the Appellant] for summary judgment by way of summons filed on the 30th December 1997 and upon reading the relevant affirmations filed herein.

It is ordered that

1. The Defendant do have unconditional leave to defend this action.

2. The parties are to file and serve their respective list of documents within 28 days from today.

3. There be mutual discovery of documents within 14 days thereafter.

4. There be liberty to apply as to further conduct of this action.

5. Costs of this application be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed."

2. It is the Appellant's contention that it was superfluous of Master Chung to make the order for discovery (under '3.' above) as all the relevant documentation is contained in another current High Court file - Case Number MP1927 of 1995 - which has dealt fundamentally with the same matters; indeed it is from this file that her case has sprung. It is the Appellant's submission that when the present matter comes to trial, the court can simply have reference to the documents contained in MP1927 of 1995 when relevant documentation needs to be studied.

3. I have taken the step of indicating to Appellant the sheer physical size of the files which make up MP1927 of 1995. I do not exaggerate when I say that, piled on top of each other, they measure several feet in height. In addition, there is a trolley outside this courtroom containing more documents. I have explained to Appellant that I would be doing a disservice to herself, the respondent and the trial judge too if agreed with her suggestion that there be no separate discovery in this case.

4. I have explained to Appellant that this is a fresh action. As it relates to fresh matters, the documents which are applicable to it must be identified; they must be paginated, they must be set out in rational order. This is the only way in which the trial judge charged with this matter can seize himself of the relevant issues and dispose of the matter in as short of time as possible thereby saving the parties wasted time and wasted costs.

5. I have explained to the Appellant that in my judgment, the order made by Master Chung is a standard order and in all the circumstances a rational order. I can find no grounds for setting it aside, in part or in total. The Appellant's appeal must therefore be dismissed. Costs are awarded to Respondent.

	(M. J. Hartmann)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Miss Mui Po-chu, Appellant in person.

Mr. Moi Oak-wah, Respondent in person.