- 6
-
A
A
B
2 of the Substituted Service Order. Please take appropriate
steps to rectify the situation and confirm your client’s position
in these proceedings forthwith.”
C
D
On 29 June 2023, OTC replied.
15.
E
It is an important letter by
which Ms Chow’s position on her status was made clear :
F
B
C
D
E
F
(1)
G
(2)
H
Ms Chow did not need to show locus as she was not seeking
leave to apply for judicial review;
G
there was a distinction in the Service Order between
H
“Defendants” (Service Order, [1]) and “anyone who opposes
I
the [Injunction]” ([2]), and that “persons opposing the
application for [Injunction]
J
are
not necessarily the
Defendants”;
K
(3)
Ms Chow “gave notice pursuant to [Service Order, [2]] as a
person with intention to oppose the application for
L
[Injunction]” without admission that she was a Defendant;
and
M
(4)
N
J
K
L
M
“The reference to “the intended Defendant” in paragraph 1 of
our letter dated 26 June 2023 was a reference to Ms Chow’s
status as an additional party to these proceedings other than
O
I
N
O
the existing defendants”.
P
Q
P
16.
On 4 July 2023, Ms Chow filed her Grounds of Opposition in
which she was referred to as the “Opposing Party”.
R
document addressed the issue of locus as follows :
Q
Paras 32 to 35 of that
R
S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V