- 11 - A B C A 29. Representing the SJ with Mr Chang SC and Ms Cheung PGC, Mr Yu SC submitted that, firstly, on Ms Chow’s own case, she is not a B C Defendant to this action, and she is required to show that she has some D E F interest in the matters for her to be joined. She has not done so. Her reliance on the general definitions of “party” or “defendant” in s.2 of the Ordinance or the Service Order does not dispense with the need for her to comply with the rules for a joinder. G H I J K L 30. Secondly, Ms Chow’s application is an abuse of process. Her request to take part without a joinder was rejected by this Court on 10 July 2023 (see para 20 above) and on 19 July 2023 (para 26 above). If she is dissatisfied, the proper course is for her to seek leave to appeal (by now she is out of time), rather than to mount a collateral challenge by seeking a declaration that she is entitled to take part without a joinder, circumventing the hurdle for leave to appeal. S.2 of the Ordinance N 31. P by virtue of s.2 of the Ordinance was made to the Court only on 18 July 2023, 2 days before the Hearing. 32. S To begin with, Ms Chow has been inconsistent on why she is a party to these proceedings. The assertion that she had become a party Q R E F G M O D Before the 18 July 2023, Ms Chow’s stance was that she was a party by virtue of being an “opposing party” under the terms of the Service Order. I am unable to agree that the Service Order was either H I J K L M N O P Q R S T T U U V V