IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4082 OF 2004
Coram: Deputy District Judge W.C. Li in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 29th September 2006
Date of Decision: 29th September 2006
1. I will deal with the first paragraph of the summons first. The order made on 26 May 2005 was made on the strength of the decisionin the Chan Tin Chi case. As observed, the order would not have been made had the parties known of the outcome of that CFA appeal. The result of thisCFA appeal is now known, the appeal in the Chan Tin Chi case was unanimously allowed. The judgment in favour of the plaintiff therefore could not be executed.
2. Indeed, it would be in the plaintiff’s interests to have D1 included in the appeal against my order made on 26 May, indeed allparties are considering consolidating both actions, i.e. the present action and the so-called D7 case. D1 has also asked today toappeal against the order after having been explained of the situation then and of the situation now by the court. D1’s intimationto appeal was only made today. So, all parties, i.e. plaintiff and D7, had prepared themselves fully to argue on the basis thatD1 was not appealing, those arguments would not be necessary in the light of D1’s intimation to the court that he wants to appeal.
3. D1 is unrepresented. From the conversation between Mr Liu (D1) and the court, it does appear that he was quite unaware of the legalarguments involved in the case. The appeal is out of time. In the light of D1 being unrepresented and in the circumstances thatit is probably in all parties’ interest to have D1 included in their appeal, I grant leave to allow D1 to appeal out of time. The Plaintiff does not really oppose the appeal. So, in these circumstances, paragraph 1 of the summons is made order in terms. Paragraph 1 reads, for the sake of the record,
(Court discussion re costs)
4. Regarding costs of this application today, there will be no order as to costs. D7’s own costs will be taxed in accordance withLegal Aid Regulations. As regarding costs of the originating summons on 26 May 2005, there will be no order as to costs as well, and D7’s own costsbe taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
5. Hopefully that puts all matters at rest and concentration could be on the future handling of the case.
Mr. Alfred Fung instructed by Messrs. Lo & Lo for the Plaintiff
1st Defendant appeared in person
Mr. Simon Ho instructed by Messrs. K. Y. Leung & Carina Chen for the 7th Defendant