A A

B HCA 428/2018 B
[2018] HKCFI 1738
C C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

E E
ACTION NO 428 OF 2018
F ____________ F

G BETWEEN G

H LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE Plaintiff H

I
and I

HANG SENG BANK LIMITED Defendant

J J
____________
K K

Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers

L L
Date of Hearing: 4 July 2018
M Date of Decision: 4 July 2018 M

N N
_____________

O DECISION O
_____________
P P

Q 1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the order of Master A Ho Q

made on 28 March 2018 whereby Master Ho dismissed the plaintiff’s

R R
summons filed on 16 March 2018 (“the summons”) with costs to the
S defendant to be paid by the plaintiff. S

T T

U U

V V
 -2-
A A

B 2. An appeal operates by way of a rehearing and the judge B

considers the evidence afresh. No further evidence can be adduced in the

C C
appeal except on special grounds, none of which are shown. See Order 58,
D rule 1(5). D

E E
3. In the summons, the plaintiff alleged that someone had used
F her lost ID card to open a bank account and stole her money from the bank. F

She further alleged that the defendant had issued a credit card with
G G
incorrect name, ie missing out her English name, “Lorraine”. She also said
H that someone had stolen her documents from the Small Claims Tribunal H

and “this is the case appeal from HCSA 43/2017”.

I I

J 4. The plaintiff did not specify either in the summons or her J

K
supporting affirmation what relief she was seeking by way of the summons. K
On this ground alone, the summons ought to be dismissed and Master Ho
L L
rightly dismissed it.

M M
5. If the summons was intended to be an appeal against
N N
HCSA 43/2017, Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung had on 9 February

O 2018 refused leave to appeal against that case in HCSA 43/2017. O

According to section 28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance,
P P
Cap 338, a refusal by the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal
Q shall be final. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not use the summons to Q

lodge an appeal against the decision in HCSA 43/2017.

R R

S 6. In her notice of appeal filed on 29 March 2018, the plaintiff S

stated as follows:
T T

U U

V V
 -3-
A A

B (1) She would like to claim back the “settlement benefits”; B

C
(2) She only knew at the hearing on 28 March 2018, that C
Master A Ho, instead of Master S Lo, would hear the
D D
summons and she was not notified in advance;

E (3) She only knew at the hearing on 28 March 2018 that the E

defendant had instructed Mayer Brown JSM and she was not
F F
notified in advance; and
G G
(4) Master A Ho did not understand the summons.
H H

7. With regard to ground (1), the plaintiff’s claim for the

I I
settlement benefits had already been adjudicated in a Small Claims Action
J in SCTC 46908/2016. She sought leave to appeal against it in J

HCSA 43/2017. As I have mentioned, she has not got leave to appeal in
K K
HCSA 43/2017.
L L

8. With regard to ground (2), change of Master hearing the

M M
matter cannot be a ground for appeal. The court in the administration of
N justice can assign any Master available to dispose of a summons without N

informing the parties beforehand.

O O

P 9. Similarly, with respect to ground (3), it is up to the defendant P

to decide which lawyers to instruct without notice to the plaintiff.

Q Q

R 10. With regard to ground (4), there is no basis to assert that R

Master A Ho did not understand the summons.

S S

T T

U U

V V
 -4-
A A

B 11. In today’s hearing, the plaintiff referred to a number of matters B

in her oral submission. By way of example, she referred to a summons,

C C
which does not concern the present appeal, that was not sealed or chopped
D by the Registrar. She also mentioned having received some judgments not D

sealed by the court; and there were other documents she had discovered
E E
recently. None of these matters mentioned in her oral submission would
F assist her in overturning the decision of Master A Ho. F

G G
12. In summary, the order of Master A Ho was plainly correct.
H I therefore dismiss the appeal. H

I I

(Discussion re costs)
J J

13. This appeal is probably a re-run of the arguments before the

K K
Master, so I make an order for costs to be borne by the plaintiff, summarily
L assessed in the sum of $10,000. L

M M

N N

O O

P P
(Queeny Au-Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
Q High Court Q

R R

S
The plaintiff appeared in person S

Ms Kwok Sze Nga, of Mayer Brown JSM, for the defendant

T T

U U

V V