Leung Chung Lan Lorraine v. Hang Seng Bank Ltd

HCA 428/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 428 OF 2018

____________

____________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1.This is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Order of Master Hui made on 28 September 2018, where the learned Master: (i) struck out the Plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the Plaintiff’s action; and (ii) dismissed the Plaintiff’s summons filed on 18 September 2018 for entering judgment against the Defendant, with costs of the action to the Defendant.

2.In the oral hearing, the Plaintiff confirms that her claim is for the sum of HK$128,654.15 (“the Settlement Benefits”), which were the Settlement Benefits under an insurance policy (“the Policy”) previously maintained by the Plaintiff with Hang Seng Life Limited and had been remitted to one of her accounts held with the Defendant.

3.According to the Plaintiff, she used to maintain two accounts with the Defendant, an account numbered 242-327-948-668 (“the 242 Account”) and another numbered 385-781885-888, the latter of which was closed on 25 November 2011.  After the Policy matured on 1 June 2012, upon the instructions of the Plaintiff, the Defendant transferred the Settlement Benefits to the 242 Account on 7 June 2012.

4.Among other things, the Plaintiff claims that she had never opened the 242 Account with the Defendant and had never received the Settlement Benefits.  She therefore commenced an action against the Defendant in the Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”), SCTC 46908/2016 (“the SCT Action”), to seek the return of the Settlement Benefits.

5.The SCT dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the Settlement Benefits in the SCT Action.  Afterwards, the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal in HCSA 43/2017 (“the SCT Appeal”) against the SCT’s decision, which was also refused.

6.In this action, the Plaintiff is bringing the same claim against the Defendant.  However, since her claim for the Settlement Benefits had already been adjudicated upon in the SCT Action, she cannot bring a fresh claim against the Defendant in this action.

7.The Plaintiff seeks to support her claim by referring to the alleged loss of her documents at the SCT, the inconsistency in the Policy reference numbers, the alleged loss of her ID card on 15 December 2011, that someone had misappropriated her PO box and that the bank staff did not check her ID.  However, these issues had been dealt with by the SCT in its Reasons for Judgment dated 17 October 2017 and decided in favour of the Defendant.

8.In her affidavits, the Plaintiff has also raised some other complaints against the Defendant, eg there were some “problems” with the Defendant’s staff, which clearly are not relevant to the Plaintiff’s pleaded claim for the Settlement Benefits.

9.In addition, the Plaintiff has raised all sorts of procedural complaints against the Defendant which are groundless.  In any event, these complaints cannot salvage the Plaintiff’s claim which had already been adjudicated upon by a competent tribunal in the past.

10.The learned Master was therefore right to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim and to dismiss her application to enter judgment against the Defendant.  Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

11.The Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to address me on the issue of costs and the Statement of Costs submitted by the Defendant’s solicitors.  As the Plaintiff has failed in this appeal, I order her to pay for the costs thereof.  I summarily assess the Defendant’s costs in the sum of $16,000.

The Plaintiff appeared in person 

Mr Tam Ho Yeung, of Mayer Brown, for the Defendant