- 10 - A A B 2. Ms Chow is represented and must be aware (1) of the SJ’s disagreement to her locus and (2) this court had made clear on 10 July 2023 that she should join as a party to these proceedings in the absence of which she would not be entited to appear as a party to the proceedings or to make submissions at the forthcoming hearing; C D 3. If Ms Chow has in mind to address the court on issues on public interest, there is nothing to stop her to apply to intervene in these proceedings; E F 4. Regrettably, Ms Chow has chosen not to make any joinder application, and the court is deprived of the opportunity to properly manage the hearing, especially if there is to be another party; G H 6. Ms Chow is the author of the situation and the requests in the Letter are declined.” J K D E F G I J K 27. M C H 5. It is now too late to allow any disruption to the hearing on 21 July 2023 in respect of which the court has a duty to resolve expeditiously; I L B The Hearing proceeded as scheduled. handed down on 28 July 2023. The Decision was On 7 August 2023, the SJ filed a Summons seeking leave to appeal against the Decision. On 21 August L M 2023, Ms Chow took out the present application. Leave to appeal was N granted by this Court on 23 August 2023. O N O Issues P Q R P 28. The lynchpin of Ms Chow case is the reliance on s.2 of the Ordinance. In addition, Ms Chow also contends that the Writ and notice of proceedings were served on her on 23 June 2023 and she acknowledged Q R service and gave notice of intention to defend on 14 July 2023. S S T T U U V V