LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. CARSON WEN AND OTHERS

HCAL 1070/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1070 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The Applicant seeks to apply for judicial review of an order made by Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung (as he then was) on 29 Mach 2018 in HCA 121/2017 (“the Order”).

2.  As can be seen from his Decision dated 29 March 2018, the learned Judge dismissed an appeal lodged by the Applicant (being the Plaintiff in HCA 121/2017) against an order of Master K H Hui made on 17 November 2017:

(1)  allowing the summons dated 29 June 2017 taken out by the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants for Further and Better Particulars of the Further and Better Particulars previously given by the Plaintiff on 5 June 2017;

(2)  extending the time for those defendants to file and serve their Defence and Counterclaim to 28 days from the date the Plaintiff filed the Further and Better Particulars ordered; and

(3)  ordering that the costs of the application including the hearing (summarily assessed at HK$37,000) be payable by the Plaintiff within 28 days from the date of the decision,

in so far as the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th Defendants were concerned, with costs to those Defendants (summarily assessed at HK$45,000).

3.  The learned Judge also allowed the Plaintiff’s appeal in so far as the 2^nd and 6^th Defendants were concerned, because they were not legal entities that could sue or be sued (see §§6-9 of the Decision).

4.  On 11 July 2019, the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal the Order.  That application was dismissed by the learned Judge on 19 September 2019 with costs to the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th Defendants (summarily assessed at HK$39,058).

5.  It is trite that judicial review does not lie against an order of the Court of First Instance of the High Court.

6.  The intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and has no realistic prospect of success.  Accordingly, the present application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person