Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 1128/2020

[2020] HKCFI 2541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1128 OF 2020

____________

BETWEEN
	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
and
	NGAI NGOK PANG
	NGAI YU LING MONY	Defendants

____________

Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers

Closing Date for Written Submission: 27 August 2020

Date of Decision: 29 September 2020

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.On 3 August 2020, the Plaintiff (Madam Yuen) issued the present originating summons in expedited form (“OS”) against the 2 Defendants, Mr Ngai Ngok Pang (NNP) and Madam Ngai Yu Ling Mony (Madam Ngai), seeking various reliefs.

2.By a letter dated 4 August 2020(“the Letter”), copied to the Defendants, this Court, on its own volition, required Madam Yuen to show cause why her OS should not be struck out for lack of reasonable cause of action, being frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process under Order 18, rule 19(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

3.Having considered the written submission to show cause dated 27 August 2020, I do not consider that Madam Yuen has shown sufficient cause to enable her to continue with this claim.

4.In the following analyses, I will identify the reliefs sought by their number as they appear in the OS.

Analyses

5.I set out in the following table the reliefs sought in the OS and the reasons stated in the Letter for considering striking out:

Reliefs sought in OS
Reasons in the Letter

1.
To grant an injunction order against NNP to stop him from sending documents to the plaintiff at United Christian Hospital (UCH) after he had already known the plaintiff’s address in HCMP 2155/2018 without doubt and the plaintiff did/does not work in UCH at all.
Relief has been dealt with in HCMP 2155/2018; abuse of process to claim again.

2.
To grant an RAO against NNP in order to stop his further vexatious and frivolous applications to be made to Justice Queeny Au Yeung and/or other judicial officers with no end. All his future RAO applications must be supported by his affidavits and be handled by Justice Queeny Au Yeung without copying the same to the plaintiff for response unless leave to RAO would be granted.
An RAO is not appropriate against NNP as this OS has just been commenced and NNP has not filed any summons ever. There is no reasonable cause of action.

3.
To further serve this OS and documents to the 2 defendants separately, to the premises of NGAI Ngok Leong at [the address at Laguna City] other than to the premises of NGAI Ching Fun (sister of the defendants) at [the address at Un Chau Street], when the 2 defendants are certainly and definitely not living at [the address at Un Chau Street] (but NNP is certainly and definitely living with NGAI Ngok Leong together at [the address at Laguna City]).
There is no cause of action against Ngai Ngok Leong or Ngai Ching Fun and they should not be troubled with receiving documents. There was a ruling and an injunction in HCMP 2155/2018 against service of documents at the address of Ngai Ngok Leong.

4.
To claim for the taxi fees, payment for dinner held for the Chinese New Year Eve, red pockets paid to the caretakers for clearing up the broken glasses and cleaning the kitchen etc. incurred on 9^th February 2013 of HK$783.50 due to the letter addressed to Justice Queeny Au Yeung by NNP copied to the plaintiff on 19^th September 2019.
The claim under paragraph 4 is beyond the limitation period.

5.
“To either order NGAI Yu Ling Mony to turn up for hearing to be held in order to enable the plaintiff to pay all judgment debts of HK$34,400.00 plus interest in HCMP 2829/2012 and CACV 118/2013 to NGAI Yu Ling Mony in cash immediate after she must sign her English name as per her Acknowledgment of Service filed in HCMP 2829/2012 on 24^th December 2012 in front of Justice Queeny Au Yeung or alternatively, to the Accounts Department of High Court pending an affidavit/affirmation of NGAI Yu Ling Mony to be filed and served by signing her English name in front of an oath commissioner of High Court same as per her Acknowledgment of Service filed in HCMP 2829/2012 on 24^th December 2012 within 14 days of Order.”
Paragraphs 5 and 6 concern other proceedings and any application should be made under the relevant proceedings in accordance with the law.

6.
To grant leave to the plaintiff for the above refund if NGAI Yu Ling Mony will not file and serve her affidavit/affirmation within the deadline.

7.
To pass the forgery and false affidavits of NNP filed and served in HCMP 2829/2012 and CACV 118/2013 (on appeal from HCMP 2829/2012) to the Secretary for Justice for consideration the second time after the first time already made by the Court of Appeal immediately after the dismissal of CACV 118/2013 on 23^rd June 2015.
Paragraph 7 is a repeated request of Madam Yuen which the Court has refused to entertain in the past. It is an abuse of process for Madam Yuen to ask again.

6.With regard to the 1^st relief, Madam Yuen stated that she did not and does not work at the UCH but her daughter did. NNP would have known Madam Yuen’s address for service in HCMP 2155/2018. Madam Yuen queried why this Court granted an injunction against her and her daughter restraining them from sending documents to NNP at the address of his brother Ngai Ngok Leong but would not grant an injunction in the present case against NNP who has been sending letters to UCH for Madam Yuen for the past 8 years.

7.Madam Yuen has conflated two matters. The injunction in HCMP 2155/2018 against her and her daughter was to stop them from sending documents to the address of a non-party. The present injunction sought formed the subject matter of previous proceedings in HCMP 2155/2018 which had been struck out. It is an abuse of process to commence one action after another for the same relief. Madam Yuen has not identified a different cause of action this time to justify the injunction sought.

8.With regard to the 2^nd relief, in §5 of PD 11.3, “an RAO should only be made if the person to be subjected to the order has abused, and is likely to continue abusing, the Court’s process by persistently making unwarranted applications to the Court in certain existing proceedings, whether before or after judgment, in circumstances where the RAO would be a proportionate response.”

9.NNP has not filed anything so far in this case. The reason stated in the Letter holds good.

10.In respect of the 3^rd relief, Madam Yuen has not identified any reason for serving documents in this case at the address of non-parties. There is no suggestion that NNP and Madam Ngai cannot receive documents at the address now stated on the OS. The reason stated in the Letter holds good.

11.In respect of the 4^th relief, Madam Yuen contended that the claim for $783.50 was not beyond the limitation period. She said that this claim was adjourned sine die in LDPD 3030/2012 on 27 February 2013.

12.Such contention was unmeritorious:

(i) Madam Yuen was not a party to LDPD 3030/2012. Rather, her daughter was the respondent there.

(ii) If the claim was made in LDPD 3030/2012, it is an abuse of process to make the same claim in the High Court 8 years later.

(iii) In the present OS, Madam Yuen sought to claim this amount incurred in 2013 allegedly due to NNP’s letter addressed to Au-Yeung J dated 6 years later, copied to her on 19 September 2019. The pleaded causation for her loss was simply illogical.

13.In respect of the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th reliefs, Madam Yuen has effectively conceded my views in the Letter.

14.Subsequent to showing cause on 27 August 2020, Madam Yuen has sent in letters dated 7, 14, 16 and 23 September 2020. The contents did not concern the present case and did not address the concerns stated in the Letter.

Conclusion

15.None of the matters raised in Madam Yuen’s submission to show cause have rebutted the reasons in the Letter. It is plain and obvious that there is no reasonable cause of action shown in the OS. In addition, the 1^st and 4^th reliefs sought are abuses of process. The bases for the reliefs cannot be cured by amendment. The OS is struck out and the claims are dismissed. I make no order as to costs.