IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
1998, Nos. 85, 89 and 90
Coram: Mortimer, V.-P., Godfrey and Rogers, JJ.A.
Date of Judgment: 20 October 1998
J U D G M E N T
Mortimer, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) :
1. This is an application by Miss Mui for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against an order made by this Court on 26 June1998. In that order we ordered that HC Action A11507 of 1997 be struck out with all proceedings in that action save for orders onits costs. Secondly, that a number of appeals which we had heard against orders of Hartmann J should be dismissed.
2. The basis for the application is twofold. First, that we should not have struck out the High Court Action because it was not a separateaction. It was only an action taken to enforce an order made by this Court when Miss Mui succeeded in persuading the Court of Appealthat a counter-claim made by the defendant should not have been heard by the judge. Miss Mui has since taken the view that she isowed a sum of $537,048.48. That misconception of hers has caused a number of proceedings which are all completely misconceived. Equally,her application for leave against that striking-out is misconceived. There is no basis upon which this Court can possibly give leaveon the ground she advances.
3. The second matter is that, she submits, she has a right of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the basis that the matter in disputeamounts to or is of the value of $1m or more under s.22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. She works that out by adding together the sum in the misconceived action that was struck out, to all the orders for costs in a multiplicityof proceedings which she has taken and submits that the total is nearly $2 1/2m owed to her by the defendant. She has therefore,she says, an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal as of right.
4. Again, although she is not personally at fault, it is a complete misunderstanding of the basis upon which there is a right of appeal.The application must, therefore, be dismissed.
Before leaving the matter, however, it has become clear that this Court ought now to place before the Secretary for Justice the questionwhether an application ought to be made under the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136 s.7(1)). As we explained in our previous judgment, we cannot take proceedings of our own motion, but we shall refer the papers to the Secretaryfor Justice to consider whether any step ought to be taken under the Mental Health Ordinance. Our thinking behind this is that Miss Mui may be assisted by such an application. This would be so if someone were appointed toconduct the litigation on her behalf so that these proceedings may be eventually brought to a conclusion.
Plaintiff(Appellant) Mui Po-chu in person
Defendant(Respondent) Moi Oak-wah in person