Barrister K M Chong's Application Unmeritorious Contemptuous & Abusive, says a Deputy High Court Judge in KOO MING KOWN v. YOUNG KWOK HUNG CLEMENT AND OTHERS (HCA 1619 / 2014)
Barrister K M Chong's Application Unmeritorious Contemptuous & Abusive, says a Deputy High Court Judge in KOO MING KOWN v. YOUNG KWOK HUNG CLEMENT AND OTHERS (HCA 1619 / 2014)
Date of Decision: 14 August 2017http://legalref.judiciary.hk/l
6. It seemed to me that the Striking Out Application made by the team led by Mr K M Chong (comprising Mr K M Chong himself, Ms Emma Wong and Mr Darren Poon and P T Yeung & Tang) might be in contemptuous disregard of Master Chow’s Order and might itself constitute an abuse of the process of the court. It cannot be over-emphasised that I was dealing with an application to strike out paragraphs in a pleading added pursuant to leave granted by Master Chow. I was not dealing with an appeal from the Master’s decision.
7. I asked Mr K M Chong to address me on why I should hear him on the Striking Out Application.
8. Mr K M Chong said that:
“ Master Chow’s Order was made on 29 [sic] June and the conduct in fact complained of all essentially happened after that date [and] we are relying on the abuse of process ground. Thereafter, there’s a series of conduct after that date ...”
9. With all due respect to Mr K M Chong, he seemed to labour under a complete misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the ground(s) for striking out under Order 18, rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, which provides that:
“(1) The Court may, either of its own motion or on application, at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the indorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the indorsement, on the ground that —
(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; or
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court;
and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.” (emphases added)
10. The word “it” in Order 18, rule 19, sub‑paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) refers to:
“ any pleading or the indorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the indorsement”;
not conduct subsequent to the pleading.
11. Conduct subsequent to leave to amend is not a ground for striking out under Order 18, rule 19, let alone an amended pleading, amended pursuant to leave of court.
12. Mr K M Chong has cited no authority to support striking out on the ground of conduct after leave to amend had been granted by the court. His team should have properly studied the facts and researched the law before making the Striking Out Application. After all, there were 3 counsel and a firm of solicitors in his team.
13. The striking out application was thoroughly unmeritorious and was a complete waste of costs and the court’s time and resources. The application itself constituted an abuse of process. It is lacking in any respect for a valid and subsisting court order. I dismissed the Striking Out Application on 31 July 2017 with costs to be taxed on indemnity basis.
Comments
Post a Comment