IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
ACTION NO 46 OF 2011
R U L I N G
1. This is an application by the plaintiff by way of summons seeking to set aside a consent order made by this court on 11 December2012. For the present purpose I do not need to go into the details of that consent order. Suffice to say that the plaintiff soughtto set aside the consent order by various reasons, saying that he was forced into entering into that consent order by way of economicduress and also there was a breach of the settlement agreement.
2. The court today is not to deal with the underlying substantive merits of that application as the defendant takes the position thatthe application cannot be entertained because of a procedural irregularity.
3. I agree with the defendant’s submissions that once the consent order has been made by this court, the court is functus officio (see the decision of Andayani v Chan Oi Ling  4 HKC 233 per Keith JA at p 237 C-G), and also Moores v Grant Thornton (unreported HCA 1126 & 735 & 87/2010, HCMP 1284/2011, Deputy High Court Judge Lok, 8 June 2012) at paragraph 28.
4. I also accept the submission by the defendant that in relation to setting aside a consent order the proper procedure is by the plaintiffto take out a fresh action (see the commentary made in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2013, Vol 1, p 471, paragraph 20/11/7 and Ng Shui Hing v Lai Hang  1 HKC 158 (CA) at p 162 B-C).
5. On that basis, I accept that this application is wrongly taken out and I will dismiss it.
6. For this reason I also order costs to be paid to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
Plaintiff, in person, represented by its director, Mr Elijah Saatori
Mr Josiah Chan Chung Ming, instructed by W K To & Co, for the defendant