Miss Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Mr Ngai Ngok Leong

HCMP 1936/2021

[2022] HKCFI 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS No 1936 OF 2021

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Introduction

1.The Plaintiff (“Madam Yuen”) is a litigant with various Restricted Proceedings Orders (“RPOs”) issued against her. On 30 November 2021, Madam Yuen filed the present originating summons (“OS”) for the following reliefs:

(1)  To order the defendant (“NNL”) to contact, inform, locate, find Ms Ngai Yu Ling Mony (“Madam Ngai”) and encourage her to turn up for an oral hearing to be held by the registrar of civil appeals in CACV 415/2019, CACV 553/2020 and CAMP 282/2019, in order to receive cash of HK$34,400 from Madam Yuen in front of 3 judges (in order to end all proceedings in one go).

(2)  To order NNL’s written apology to be made to Madam Yuen due to his wrong allegations against Madam Yuen in his letter addressed to Au-Yeung J in HCMP 2155/2018 on 2 January 2019 (“the Letter”).

(3)  As a matter of fact, Madam Yuen had never owed any judgment debts in HCMP 2829/2012 and CACV 118/2013 to Mr Ngai Ngok Pang alone but Madam Ngai too. Pursuant to the judgment delivered by Au-Yeung J in CACV 96/2013 on 6 April 2017, Madam Yuen could not pay the judgment debts to Mr Ngai Ngok Pang alone despite the fact that Madam Ngai never chased after the judgment debt in HCMP 2829/2012 and CACV 118/2013.

(4)  To order compensation to Madam Yuen for her injury to feelings when NNL had made all allegations against her in his Letter which were not true and further led to an Injunction Order taken against both Madam Yuen and her daughter in HCMP 2155/2018 on 21 March 2019.

2.By a letter dated 9 December 2021 (“Court’s Letter”), this Court invited Madam Yuen to show cause in writing within 14 days as to:

(1)  Why the OS should not be struck out on the grounds of lack of reasonable cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process, and why the proceedings should not be dismissed.

(2)  Why an RPO should not be issued against her to restrain her from taking any action against NNL or sending NNL any documents arising from certain specified matters, except with leave of the designated judge.

3.In the meantime, NNL was not required to take any step in the present case unless otherwise directed by the Court.

4.In the Court’s Letter, this Court set out the background to HCMP 2155/2018 and the reasons why it was deemed fit to ask Madam Yuen to show cause:

“1. In HCMP 2155/2018

(a) Madam Yuen served documents on Mr Ngai Ngok Leong (NNL) who was not a party. NNL wrote to the Court on 2 January 2019 (“the Letter”) objecting to service of documents on him at his address. It was a valid objection as the Court had, at the hearing on 4 January 2019, told Madam Yuen that she could not serve documents on persons not related to that case. Madam Yuen told the Court that she understood. (§§3-4 of the Decision dated 21 March 2019)

(b) Madam Yuen further took out a summons requiring NNL to file an affidavit to confirm his signature and [knowledge] of the Letter. She alleged that she believed the signature of NNL was forged by Ngai Ngok Pang. That application has been dismissed without the need for NNL or Ngai Ngok Pang to respond. The Court expressly held that the need to deal with the Letter had been spent at the hearing on 4 January 2019. (§§17 and 18 of the Decision dated 21 March 2019)

(c) On 21 March 2019, noting that Madam Yuen and her daughter Michelle Lee had twice sent documents to NNL although he was not a party, this Court made an order, amongst others, that Madam Yuen and her daughter, “whether jointly or individually, and/or through agents and/or through representatives, be restrained from serving any document in [HCMP 2155/2018] on [NNL] or at his address without approval of the court. If any such document is served on [NNL] without the court’s approval, he would not need to respond in any way (including but not limited to passing on those documents to any of the defendants (i.e. Ngai Ngok Pang and Madam Ngai) or responding to any matter stated in those documents).”

2. Madam Yuen now uses a fresh action in the present case to sue NNL.

(a) Insofar as the cause of action was based on the Letter which has been dealt with in HCMP 2155/2018, this is an abuse of the process of the Court.

(b) This action is an attempt to pester NNL against whom Madam Yuen has no other causes of action except arising from her own unilateral conduct of serving NNL in HCMP 2155/2018.

(c) Insofar as §§1 and 3 of the originating summons are concerned, they have nothing to do with the Defendant.

3. ……

4. [The specified matters to which the intended RPO relates are:]

(a) Prior correspondence (including the Letter) between NNL and the Court in any case;

(b) Any judgment debt or costs owed by Madam Yuen to Ngai Ngok Pang and/or Ngai Yu Ling Mony in any court action (whether those judgment debt or costs were or are admitted by Madam Yuen or not);

(c) Any matter concerning Ngai Ngok Pang, Ngai Yu Ling and/or NNL.”

5.On 11 December 2021, Madam Yuen lodged written submission to show cause.

Strike-out

6.Under Order 18, rule 19(1) of the Rules of the High Court, the Court has power, on application or on its own volition, to strike out a pleading and dismiss a claim on the grounds of lack of reasonable cause of action, that it is frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process. The power extends to proceedings commenced by originating summons: rule 19(3).

7.There will be no trial on affidavit. The pleading must be incurably bad before the Court will exercise its power under Order 18, rule 19.

8.With regard to paragraph 1 of the OS, just by reading the OS, there is no allegation that NNL owed any duty to Madam Yuen to do the things he is asked to do. No reasonable cause of action is disclosed. Paragraph 1 of the OS should be struck out on this ground alone.

9.Next, one can have regard to the evidence. NNL was not a party to any of the proceedings mentioned in the OS, nor was he subject to any court order requiring him to do anything. The orders mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the OS were imposed on Madam Yuen to pay NNL’s siblings (Ngai Ngok Pang and Madam Ngai). It is an abuse of process for Madam Yuen to drag in NNL.

10.The only possible “involvement” of NNL was the Letter. In paragraph 2 of the OS, Madam Yuen quoted certain passages in the Letter. Those passages were only expressions of opinion of NNL which had no impact on HCMP 2155/2018 as NNL was not a party to that case and this Court did not act on those passages. No cause of action could arise from NNL sending the Letter to the Court.

11.The allegations against NNL are frivolous or vexatious in that there is no chance of Madam Yuen succeeding on any of them. It is an abuse of process for Madam Yuen to trouble NNL by serving him unnecessarily with documents and then turn round to sue him for writing the Letter to the Court.

12.With regard to paragraph 4 of the OS, the Injunction Order against Madam Yuen and her daughter given on 21 March 2019 was to restrain Madam Yuen from further sending documents to NNL at his home. See the decision dated 21 March 2019 in HCMP 2155/2018. The Injunction Order was never overturned and Madam Yuen’s collateral attack on that Order in the present proceedings is an abuse of process.

13.The 4-page submission that purports to show cause contains wholly irrelevant matters that do not address the Court’s Letter but 2 statements are telling of Madam Yuen’s motive in issuing the OS:

(1)  Madam Yuen sought leave under an RPO in HCMP 1087/2005 to file the present OS before she would give her further witness statement against an alleged forgery of Ngai Ngok Pang. This Court granted leave because the present OS was simply not covered by any RPO. On page 2 of her submission, under “Exhibit 2”, Madam Yuen stated that her seeking leave was:

“(in order to test if [NNL] would sign and file his Acknowledgement of Service) … Surprisingly, Justice Queeny Au-Yeung granted me leave within 5 days … I was then thrilled to file and serve my [OS] the next morning …”

(2)  Under Exhibits 3 & 4, Madam Yuen stated that she

“sincerely hope Justice Lam PJ and [CJHC Poon] would help Justice Queeny Au-Yeung out before she may strike out [this OS] by avoiding [NNL] to sign and file his Acknowledgement of Service which was my sole purpose of filing and serving HCMP1936/2021 to [NNL].”

14.These 2 statements are clear admissions of her abusive use of the present OS to trouble NNL against whom she could have no cause of action.

15.For all the reasons given above, the claims under this OS have no chance of success. They are frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. I strike out the OS and dismiss the claim.

Issue of an RPO

16.An RPO 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 seeking persistently to re-litigate in fresh proceedings, without viable legal grounds, matters which have already been determined by the Court, in circumstances where an RPO would be a proportionate response: §8 of PD 11.3.

17.The decision of this Court dated 21 March 2019 in HCMP 2155/2018 expressly stated that the need to deal with the Letter was spent. It would have been apparent to Madam Yuen or any reader that the Letter had no impact on that set of proceedings and no action could have been taken by Madam Yuen on that Letter.

18.Madam Yuen seeks to re-litigate the effect of the Letter by fresh action. She also makes a collateral attack on the Injunction Order imposed in HCMP 2155/2018. She raises issues about payment of costs in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the OS which have been determined in other proceedings.

19.In her written submission,

(1)  On page 4, Madam Yuen states that “it is meaningless to issue an RPO against me in order to restrain me from taking action against [NNL] or sending him of any documents arising from the respective matters because RPO does not stop me from my further appeals to be made in the Court of Appeal …”

(2)  Under “Exhibit 6”, she stated that she has sent her written submission, not only to NNL but also Mr Ngai Ngok Pang and Madam Ngai.

20.Madam Yuen shows no regret in the pursuit of hopeless litigation against NNL and once again in serving documents on non-parties.

21.Madam Yuen has continued to send documents to judges and various entities, all copied to the 3 Ngais on 21, 22 December 2021, 10, 15 February, 9, 15, 24 March, 9 April, 12, 23 May and 9 June 2022. As they were not to show cause and/or were beyond the closing date for showing cause, those documents have not been considered. However, they are relevant in showing how Madam Yuen would continue to abuse the process and trouble the 3 Ngais.

22.Madam Yuen has had a number of unsuccessful proceedings against Ngai Ngok Pang and/or Ngai Ngai Yu Ling. She opens a new front with NNL in the present OS and her abuse of process ought to be restrained.

23.Accordingly, I impose an RPO in the following terms:

(1)  That subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, Yuen Oi Yee Lisa (“Lisa Yuen”) is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, concerning any matters involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to or arising out of “specified matters” without the leave of Au- Yeung J (“the designated judge”) being first obtained (“the RPO”). The specified matters are:

(a)  HCMP 2155/2018, CACV 415/2019, CACV 553/2020, CAMP 282/2019, HCMP 2829/2012, CACV 96/2013 and CACV 118/2013;

(b)  Prior correspondence (including the letter dated 2 January 2019 from Ngai Ngok Leong to the Court in HCMP 2155/2018) between Ngai Ngok Leung and the Court;

(c)  Any judgment debt or costs owed by Lisa Yuen to Ngai Ngok Pang and/or Ngai Yu Ling Mony in any court proceedings (whether those judgment debt or costs have been paid by Lisa Yuen or not); and

(d)  Any matter concerning Ngai Ngok Pang, Ngai Yu Ling and/or Ngai Ngok Leong.

(2)  That all applications for leave to issue fresh proceedings covered or which may be covered by this RPO (“RPO leave applications”) must be made in writing to the designated judge (and not to any other judge or to a master) enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceeding is intended to be commenced.

(3)  Madam Yuen must not serve an RPO leave application, and/or any related documents on any intended defendant, Ngai Ngok Leong, Ngai Ngok Pang or Ngai Yu Ling Mony, unless otherwise directed by the designated judge.

(4)  That in the event that the designated judge is not available to hear the RPO leave application, the same shall be dealt with by another judge designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court.

(5)  That all RPO leave applications and all matters ancillary thereto shall be dealt with on the papers and without any oral hearing unless the designated judge otherwise directs.

(6)  That if, contrary to the RPO, Lisa Yuen seeks to issue fresh proceedings covered or which may be covered by the RPO without prior leave of the designated judge, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registry of the High Court, District Court, Small Claims Tribunal, or to the notice of any master, judge or judicial officer, the Registry, master, judge or judicial officer in question shall forthwith refer those proceedings to the designated judge for a decision as to whether the proceedings should be permitted to continue or be dismissed.

(7)  That if, contrary to the RPO, Lisa Yuen purports to serve on one or more defendants any fresh proceedings (whether or not the purported fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the designated judge or some other judge, master or judicial officer) without at the same time serving on the defendant(s) a copy of an order giving leave to proceed or a direction that leave is not required, such defendant(s) should be entitled to make no response pending notification of the court's decision in relation to those proceedings; and, insofar as necessary, time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such fresh proceedings shall be deemed extended accordingly.

(8)  That the proceedings referred to in this RPO includes proceedings of whatever nature in the Court of First Instance, the District Court and the Small Claims Tribunal.

(9)  That this RPO shall not prohibit Lisa Yuen from exercising her right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.

(10)  Except her written application to this Court for leave pursuant to this order, Lisa Yuen’s letters or faxes to this Court will not be read and there will not be any response thereto from this Court.

(11)  That notification of this Order shall be given to the respective Registrars of the High Court, District Court and Small Claims Tribunal, who shall take note of the terms hereof and shall take all necessary steps to ensure due compliance with this Order.

The Plaintiff was not represented and lodged written submission