- 15 - A B C A in the outcome of the action (or application) should be allowed to take part in the action would be a situation where the context “otherwise requires”. B C In other words, where the Court is concerned with the question whether a D E F G H I person should or should not be joined, the Court would apply the specific rules under O.15, r.6, and not the general definitions in s.2 of the Ordinance. 42. and Ms Leung, submitted there is an absurdity in the SJ submissions in that, according to the SJ, a party must admit that he is conducting or propose to conduct himself in any of the acts sought to be restrained before he can be allowed to be heard. J 43. K L M P Q R In my respectful view, the proposition misses the point that propose to conduct herself in any of the Acts. Her entitlement to be heard depends on meeting the requirements for joinder either as a party or as an intervener. There was no inhibition for her to make such an application. 44. In Hong Kong Housing Authority v Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates Ltd [2005] 1 HKLRD 801, [7]-[11], the Housing Authority sought to serve a summons on the defendant’s insurer in Germany for the purpose of holding it liable for the costs of its proceedings against the defendant. E F G H I Ms Chow’s unequivocal stance is that she is not a person conducting or N O Ms Li SC, who represents Ms Chow with Mr Kwan, Mr Wong D There was a difficulty because the relevant statutory provisions did not allow the Court to make costs awards against a non- J K L M N O P Q R party. The Housing Authority argued that the insurer should be declared S a party to the proceedings by relying on s.2 of the Ordinance. Reyes J S T T U U V V