Case Detail

LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Related cases with same parties

CACV146/2008PO HIO CHUA v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
CACV222/2011MARK WIEMER v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
CACV262/2004HANG SENG BANK LTD v. GOLDEN TECH (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS
CACV43/2010HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LEUNG SHUI CHUNG AND ANOTHER
CACV44/2018LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. MERCER (HONG KONG) LTD
CACV551/2018LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
DCEC69/2002ALI SHOUKAT v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
DCMP1602/2025CHAN CHUN HEI RYAN v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
DCMP3041/2020LIANG YONGXIAO v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
DCMP344/2022HANG SENG BANK LTD v. CHENG YIN SHAN THERESA
HCA1246/1971HANG SENG BANK LTD v. WOO KAY-YUN
HCA1710/2021YOUNG CRYSTAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
HCA1789/2011HANG SENG BANK LTD v. GAINTEX GARMENT COMPANY LTD
HCA193/2003HANG SENG BANK LTD v. GOLDEN TECH (ASIA) LTD AND OTHERS
HCA2480/2007HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LAU CHING CHE t/a NAM YAT HONG and as KWONG ON TRADING HONG AND OTHERS
HCA3002/2018CHEUNG HON KUEN v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
HCA3615/1984HANG SENG BANK LTD v. CHAN FONG CHIU AND OTHERS
HCA627/2017LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. MERCER (HONG KONG) LTD
HCA959/2014LEUNG KIN KEUNG v. HANG SENG BANK LTD
HCB1571/2007HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LIN YAO MING

Files (2)

[2018] HKCFI 2514-EN-2018-11-14

LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

HTML content

HCA 428/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 428 OF 2018

____________

BETWEEN
	LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE	Plaintiff
and
	HANG SENG BANK LIMITED	Defendant

____________

Before:

Hon Lok J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	7 November 2018
Date of Judgment:	14 November 2018

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1. This is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Order of Master Hui made on 28 September 2018, where the learned Master: (i) struck out the Plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the Plaintiff’s action; and (ii) dismissed the Plaintiff’s summons filed on 18 September 2018 for entering judgment against the Defendant, with costs of the action to the Defendant.

2. In the oral hearing, the Plaintiff confirms that her claim is for the sum of HK$128,654.15 (“the Settlement Benefits”), which were the Settlement Benefits under an insurance policy (“the Policy”) previously maintained by the Plaintiff with Hang Seng Life Limited and had been remitted to one of her accounts held with the Defendant.

3. According to the Plaintiff, she used to maintain two accounts with the Defendant, an account numbered 242-327-948-668 (“the 242 Account”) and another numbered 385-781885-888, the latter of which was closed on 25 November 2011. After the Policy matured on 1 June 2012, upon the instructions of the Plaintiff, the Defendant transferred the Settlement Benefits to the 242 Account on 7 June 2012.

4. Among other things, the Plaintiff claims that she had never opened the 242 Account with the Defendant and had never received the Settlement Benefits. She therefore commenced an action against the Defendant in the Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”), SCTC 46908/2016 (“the SCT Action”), to seek the return of the Settlement Benefits.

5. The SCT dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the Settlement Benefits in the SCT Action. Afterwards, the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in HCSA 43/2017 (“the SCT Appeal”) against the SCT’s decision, which was also refused.

6. In this action, the Plaintiff is bringing the same claim against the Defendant. However, since her claim for the Settlement Benefits had already been adjudicated upon in the SCT Action, she cannot bring a fresh claim against the Defendant in this action.

7. The Plaintiff seeks to support her claim by referring to the alleged loss of her documents at the SCT, the inconsistency in the Policy reference numbers, the alleged loss of her ID card on 15 December 2011, that someone had misappropriated her PO box and that the bank staff did not check her ID. However, these issues had been dealt with by the SCT in its Reasons for Judgment dated 17 October 2017 and decided in favour of the Defendant.

8. In her affidavits, the Plaintiff has also raised some other complaints against the Defendant, eg there were some “problems” with the Defendant’s staff, which clearly are not relevant to the Plaintiff’s pleaded claim for the Settlement Benefits.

9. In addition, the Plaintiff has raised all sorts of procedural complaints against the Defendant which are groundless. In any event, these complaints cannot salvage the Plaintiff’s claim which had already been adjudicated upon by a competent tribunal in the past.

10. The learned Master was therefore right to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim and to dismiss her application to enter judgment against the Defendant. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

11. The Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to address me on the issue of costs and the Statement of Costs submitted by the Defendant’s solicitors. As the Plaintiff has failed in this appeal, I order her to pay for the costs thereof. I summarily assess the Defendant’s costs in the sum of $16,000.

	(David Lok)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

The Plaintiff appeared in person

Mr Tam Ho Yeung, of Mayer Brown, for the Defendant

HCA 428/2018

[2018] HKCFI 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 428 OF 2018

____________

BETWEEN
	LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE	Plaintiff
and
	HANG SENG BANK LIMITED	Defendant

____________

Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 4 July 2018

Date of Decision: 4 July 2018

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the order of Master A Ho made on 28 March 2018 whereby Master Ho dismissed the plaintiff’s summons filed on 16 March 2018 (“the summons”) with costs to the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff.

2. An appeal operates by way of a rehearing and the judge considers the evidence afresh. No further evidence can be adduced in the appeal except on special grounds, none of which are shown. See Order 58, rule 1(5).

3. In the summons, the plaintiff alleged that someone had used her lost ID card to open a bank account and stole her money from the bank. She further alleged that the defendant had issued a credit card with incorrect name, ie missing out her English name, “Lorraine”. She also said that someone had stolen her documents from the Small Claims Tribunal and “this is the case appeal from HCSA 43/2017”.

4. The plaintiff did not specify either in the summons or her supporting affirmation what relief she was seeking by way of the summons. On this ground alone, the summons ought to be dismissed and Master Ho rightly dismissed it.

5. If the summons was intended to be an appeal against HCSA 43/2017, Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung had on 9 February 2018 refused leave to appeal against that case in HCSA 43/2017. According to section 28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap 338, a refusal by the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal shall be final. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not use the summons to lodge an appeal against the decision in HCSA 43/2017.

6. In her notice of appeal filed on 29 March 2018, the plaintiff stated as follows:

(1)   She would like to claim back the “settlement benefits”;
(2)   She only knew at the hearing on 28 March 2018, that Master A Ho, instead of Master S Lo, would hear the summons and she was not notified in advance;
(3)   She only knew at the hearing on 28 March 2018 that the defendant had instructed Mayer Brown JSM and she was not notified in advance; and
(4)   Master A Ho did not understand the summons.

7. With regard to ground (1), the plaintiff’s claim for the settlement benefits had already been adjudicated in a Small Claims Action in SCTC 46908/2016. She sought leave to appeal against it in HCSA 43/2017. As I have mentioned, she has not got leave to appeal in HCSA 43/2017.

8. With regard to ground (2), change of Master hearing the matter cannot be a ground for appeal. The court in the administration of justice can assign any Master available to dispose of a summons without informing the parties beforehand.

9. Similarly, with respect to ground (3), it is up to the defendant to decide which lawyers to instruct without notice to the plaintiff.

10. With regard to ground (4), there is no basis to assert that Master A Ho did not understand the summons.

11. In today’s hearing, the plaintiff referred to a number of matters in her oral submission. By way of example, she referred to a summons, which does not concern the present appeal, that was not sealed or chopped by the Registrar. She also mentioned having received some judgments not sealed by the court; and there were other documents she had discovered recently. None of these matters mentioned in her oral submission would assist her in overturning the decision of Master A Ho.

12. In summary, the order of Master A Ho was plainly correct. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

(Discussion re costs)

13. This appeal is probably a re-run of the arguments before the Master, so I make an order for costs to be borne by the plaintiff, summarily assessed in the sum of $10,000.

	(Queeny Au-Yeung)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

The plaintiff appeared in person

Ms Kwok Sze Nga, of Mayer Brown JSM, for the defendant