OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND ANOTHER v. CHOY BING WING

OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND ANOTHER v. CHOY BING WING

The summons was dismissed because prior adverse rulings alone do not require recusal, there is no right for a litigant to nominate a judge, and the application for specific discovery failed for lack of specification and demonstrated relevance; accordingly no adjournment or discovery was ordered and the recusal application was refused.

Citation
OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND ANOTHER v. CHOY BING WING
Parties
1st Plaintiff: OFFICIAL RECEIVER and Trustee of Bankrupt NG YAT CHI (Discharged); 2nd Plaintiff: STEPHENSON HARWOOD & LO; Defendant: CHOY BING WING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2007
Case Number
HCMP1095/2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 1095 of 2007, High Court of the Hong Kong SAR (court of First Instance) / Chambers Hearing on Summons (recusal and Specific Discovery Applications)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Disqualification of Judge, Specific Discovery, Adjournment
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Judicial Conduct/recusal Property Charging Orders Charging Order Disqualification of Judge Specific Discovery Adjournment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OFFICIAL RECEIVER and Trustee of Bankrupt NG YAT CHI (Discharged)

1st Plaintiff

STEPHENSON HARWOOD & LO

2nd Plaintiff

CHOY BING WING

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 1095 of 2007, High Court of the Hong Kong SAR (court of First Instance) / Chambers Hearing on Summons (recusal and Specific Discovery Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should be disqualified or recused for prior adverse rulings
  2. 2 Whether a litigant has a right to nominate or choose the judge
  3. 3 Whether specific discovery should be ordered concerning alleged judicial misconduct or deception

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because prior adverse rulings alone do not require recusal, there is no right for a litigant to nominate a judge, and the application for specific discovery failed for lack of specification and demonstrated relevance; accordingly no adjournment or discovery was ordered and the recusal application was refused.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • No specific discovery granted