IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2007
(ON APPEAL FROM LDPD NO. 567 OF 2007)
Before : Hon Tang VP in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 30 August 2007
Date of Decision: 30 August 2007
Hon Tang VP (giving the decision of the Court):
1. On 21 August 2007, I granted a stay of execution conditional on the respondent paying the judgment sums within 10 days from thatdate, which will expire on 31 August 2007.
2. By summons dated 28 August 2007, the respondent applied for an extension of time of 3 more days to pay the applicant, or by 5:30pm on Monday, 3 September 2007. He also applied for an abridgment of time because of the urgency.
3. Mr Kwong claimed that he has lost two days, this is what he said in his affidavit on 28 August 2007:
4. And also from the evidence that Mr Kwong had supplied, it seemed that he has reported the matter to the police. Be that as it may,there is no evidence before me to show why he should be unable to make payment within the original 10 days, so I would dismiss theapplication. I would not need to deal with the question of abridgement of time because in any event, I would not grant the reliefthat Mr Kwong seeks by the summons of 28 August 2007.
5. I should also mention that since my judgment on 21 August 2007, Mr Kwong wrote to my clerk on 24 August 2007, raising the questionas to the legality of the writ of possession to evict his wife and baby daughter.
6. On my direction, my clerk replied on 28 August 2007, informing the respondent that she was directed by me to inform him that aftera judgment has been given, the court cannot enter into any correspondence or discussion with the parties.
7. Today Mr Kwong raised the matter again.
8. I wish only to say, I am not concerned with Mr Kwong’s wife or his baby, because they are not parties before me. What I am concernedwith on 21 August 2007 and today is the application by Mr Kwong for a stay of execution of the judgment given in the Lands Tribunalon 6 July 2007.
9. His wife and baby are not parties before me, so there is nothing that I wish to say which might affect them.
10. I have no reason, however, to believe that the writ of possession, vis-à-vis Mr Kwong is in any way defective. There has certainlybeen no submission made to me to that effect. I have seen no evidence which shows that the writ of possession might in any way bedefective, so far as Mr Kwong is concerned.
11. So far as the costs are concerned, Mr Kwong’s summons is dismissed and costs would have to follow the event. I also make a grosssum order in the sum of $6,000. I believe that this is a suitable case for such an order to be made, the cost and trouble of taxationotherwise would be disproportionate to the amount involved.
12. So the application is dismissed with costs by a gross sum order in the sum of $6,000.
The Respondent, in person, present.
Mr Victor K H Chiu, instructed by Messrs Lo, Chan & Leung, for the Applicant.