DCCJ 1493/2023

[2025] HKDC 927

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1493 OF 2023

---------------------------

---------------------------

---------------------------

DECISION

---------------------------

INTRODUCTION

1. On 24 April 2025, this Court handed down the decision, allowing the appeal of the Plaintiff (“ P ”) against the Order of Master Andrea Yu made on 11 September 2024 (the “ 11/9/2024 Order ”) [1] and ordered the 11/9/2024 Order be set aside. This Court also made a costs order nisi that D shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the 6/11/2023 Summons and the hearings below, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed, with certificate for counsel. (the “ Decision ”)

2. In other words, by virtue of the Decision, the Default Judgment was reinstated and the Defence and Counterclaim filed by D on 26 September 2024 pursuant to the 11/9/2024 Order can no longer stand.

3. On 7 May 2025, D applied, by way of a summons, for leave to appeal against the Decision (the “ 7/5/2025 Summons ”). In support of the 7/5/2025 Summons, D filed an affirmation made by himself on 7 May 2025 (the “ 7/5/2025 Affirmation ”). [2]

4. On 8 May 2025, this Court received a 1-page handwritten note dated 7 May 2025 (the “ 7/5/2025 Note ”) together with another affirmation made by D on 8 May 2025 (the “ 8/5/2025 Affirmation ”). Like the 7/5/2025 Affirmation, the 8/5/2025 Affirmation is a lengthy document, containing a 46-page long appended document (the “ Appended Document ”) with exhibits “A” to “YY” [3] (collectively as the “ Exhibits ” and individually as “ Exhibit A ”, “ Exhibit B ” … “ Exhibit YY ” respectively). In the 7/5/2025 Note, D informed this Court that the 7/5/2025 Affirmation had a documentary design defect and was incomprehensible to the readers, that the 8/5/2025 Affirmation was filed to replace the 7/5/2025 Affirmation to assist this Court to understand and comprehend D’s legal viewpoints and that this Court could ignore the 7/5/2025 Affirmation. At the substantive leave hearing on 26 May 2025, D confirmed with this Court that the 8/5/2025 Affirmation replaced the 7/5/2025 Affirmation, that typos aside, an important difference between the 7/5/2025 Affirmation and the 8/5/2025 Affirmation was that the exhibits to the 8/5/2025 Affirmation had been marked as “A” to “YY” and that this Court did not need to read the 7/5/2025 Affirmation.

5. On 22 May 2025, D filed his 3 ^rd Affirmation, containing a 4-page appended document with a title of “上訴許可申請重點摘要” (translated as “Leave Application Bullet Points”) (the “