SHIH MEI CHIN v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

FAMV000031/2000

Not for circulation

FAMV No. 31 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 31 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV NO. 118 OF 2000)

_____________________

Between:
	SHIH MEI CHIN	Applicant
	AND
	THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG	Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 17 November 2000

Date of Determination: 17 November 2000

 

______________________

DETERMINATION

______________________

 

Mr Justice Chan PJ :

1. On 3 January 2000, the applicant commenced proceedings in the High Court against the Law Society for failing to supervise its members. She claimed $50 million as loss and damage. On the same day, the writ was served by registered post. On 19 January 2000, the Law Society filed its acknowledgement of service.

2. On 19 January, the applicant issued a summons seeking default judgment against the Law Society. This was refused by the Master on 26 January. She lodged an appeal against this decision.

3. Meanwhile, the Law Society filed an application to strike out her claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. At a hearing on 10 February, the Master struck out the action. There was no appeal against this decision.

4. The applicant's appeals to the Judge and subsequently to the Court of Appeal were dismissed. The Court of Appeal also refused to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant now applies to us for leave.

5. We have carefully considered the applicant's written and oral submissions. There is clearly no merit in the application for default judgment. The action had been struck out and there is no basis for her appeals. The applicant's application and her appeals had been rightly dismissed. We do not think the criteria in section 22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance have been met. The order of the Court of Appeal was not a final order within the meaning of that provision. No point of law of great and general or public importance has been raised. Accordingly we dismiss the application with costs to the Respondent.

 

 

 

Representation:

Applicant in person

Miss Kennis C.K. Tai (instructed by Messrs Deacons Graham & James) for the Respondent