SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

HCMP 260/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 260 OF 2013

————————–

IN THE MATTER OF (1) High Court Action No. 2351 of 2005; (2) High Court Action No. 125 of 2005; and (3) High Court Action No. 2458of 2007

and

IN THE MATTER OF (1) a charging order absolute dated 2nd November 2007 granted in High Court Action No. 2351 of 2005; (2) a charging order absolute dated 20th November 2007 granted in High Court Action No. 125 of 2005; and (3) a charging order absolute dated 22nd December 2010 granted in High Court Action No. 2458 of 2007 on 35/850 parts or shares of andin all those piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as the Remaining Portion of Inland Lot No. 7109, the RemainingPortion of Inland Lot No. 7110; the Remaining Portion of Inland Lot No. 7111, the Remaining Portion of Section A of Inland Lot No.513, the Remaining Portion of Section B of Inland Lot No. 513, and the Remaining Portion of Inland Lot No. 513

and

IN THE MATTER OF Order 50, Rule 9A of the Rules of High Court

BETWEEN

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Plaintiff

and

CHOY BING WING Defendant
————————–

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 24 September 2013
Date of Decision: 2 October 2013

——————–

D E C I S I O N

——————–

1. This is an application by the defendant for leave to appeal against the decision of this court dated 20 August 2013 (“Decision”)whereby his appeal against two decisions of Master M Wong was dismissed.

2. I am simply unable to see any merits in this application. Indeed, the “important questions on points of law” set out in thedefendant’s summons dated 26 August 2013 are very difficult to understand.

3. Further, I do not begin to see any reason why this appeal should be heard in the interest of justice.

4. The defendant appears to be preoccupied with obtaining the transcript of the hearing of his appeal before this court. The sole reasonadvanced by him for obtaining the transcript is that in the course of the hearing it was mentioned by this court that he had beenconvicted. The defendant submits that he has not been convicted of any crime. Instead, he was committed to prison for contemptof court. Whilst I am unable to see how the transcript may assist the defendant’s case in any way, I have decided to release thesame to the defendant subject to his undertakings that he shall bear the costs involved and on the use of the transcript.

5. For these reasons, this application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff which are summarily assessed at HK$17,042.

(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Alexander Lee, of Lo & Lo, for the plaintiff
The defendant appeared in person