DCPI 2488/2021

[2024] HKDC 1377

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 2488 OF 2021

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

BETWEEN

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

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

DECISION

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

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This is the defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court dated 22 September 2023 (“the Judgment”). At the end of the lengthy 99-page Judgment, which incidentally is the longest personal injures (“PI”) judgment that this court has ever written, I decided the issue of liability in favour of the plaintiff with an award of damages in the sum of HK$1,741,764.28, together with interest and costs.

2. On 20 October 2023, the defendant filed a summons for leave to appeal against the Judgment (“the Leave Application”). The original hearing date for the Leave Application was fixed on 5 March 2024.

3. On 21 October 2023, the defendant sought leave to obtain the transcript of the trial. Leave was promptly granted by this court. The transcript was prepared and ready for collection on 29 December 2023. On 2 January 2024, the defendant collected copies of the transcript.

4. On 9 February 2024, the parties by way of a consent summons (“the Consent Summons”) jointly sought directions for paper disposal of the Leave Application.

5. On 21 February 2024, the court approved the Consent Summons as amended, including a direction that the Leave Application to be dealt with on paper and the oral hearing originally fixed on 5 March 2024 for the application was vacated. In the Consent Summons, it has been specifically agreed by the parties that their primary submissions shall be limited to 20 A4 size pages and the submission in reply shall be limited to 5 A4 size pages only.

6. In accordance with the terms of the Consent Summons, the defendant has lodged its written submissions and list of authorities on 17 April 2024 (“D’s Submissions”).

7. Although D’s Submissions consisted of 20 A4 pages (as agreed by the parties under the Consent Summons), it was typed out in single line spacing which, not only made reading them difficult, it is in my view against the spirit, if not the letter, of the parties’ own agreement.

8. The plaintiff has lodged her written submissions and list of authorities on 8 May 2024 (“P’s Submissions”).

9. The defendant has lodged its reply submissions on 29 May 2024 (“D’s Reply”).

10. Again, although D’s Reply consisted of 5 A4 pages as agreed by the parties, it was typed out in single line spacing and in smaller font size, with no spacing in between paragraphs and headings. Further, a lot of the substantive arguments contained in D’s Reply were placed in the footnotes in even smaller font size. It makes reading them an exceedingly di