DCCJ 4215/2023

[2024] HKDC 1282

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4215 OF 2023

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

BETWEEN

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

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

DECISION

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

INTRODUCTION

1. On 26 March 2024, I dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against:

(1) the summary judgment entered by Registrar Soong on 19 January 2024 regarding vacant possession of the Property [1] ;

(2) the case management directions made by Registrar Soong and Master Maurice Lam on 19 January 2024 and 24 January 2024 [2] .

2. As explained in my Reasons for Decision dated 2 April 2024 ( [2024] HKDC 499 [3] ), I am of the view that:-

(1) The Defendant does not have any arguable defence against the Plaintiff’s claim for vacant possession of the Property [4] .

(2) The case management directions provided by Registrar Soong and Master Lam were sound and appropriate [5] .

3. By the summons dated 12 April 2024, the Defendant seeks leave to appeal against my order/decision dated 26 March 2024.

4. Pursuant to the directions made by Chief District Judge Justin Ko on 27 May 2024:

(1) The Defendant’s summons seeking leave to appeal is to be dealt on paper; and

(2) The parties have respectively filed and lodged affirmations and written submissions (which I have duly considered).

LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST MY DECISION ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR VACANT POSSESSION

It is Unnecessary for the Defendant to seek extension of time

5. In his summons dated 12 April 2024, the Defendant states that he seeks leave to appeal out of time. In light of this indication, the Plaintiff’s legal representatives make submissions on the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay and alleged prejudice.

6. Insofar as the intended appeal against my decision on the summary judgment for vacant possession is concerned, it appears that both parties have proceeded on a wrong premise.

7. The following provisions in the Rules of District Court ( Cap 336H ) are pertinent:-

(1) Order 58, rule 2(4)(c) provides that an application for leave to appeal against a judge’s interlocutory judgment, order or decision shall be made within 14 days .

(2) Order 58, rule 2(4)(b) provides that an application for leave to appeal against a judge’s judgment, order or decision that is not interlocutory in nature shall be made within 28 days .

(3) According to Order 58, rule 4(1)(a) , a judgment or order that d