Tse Jeekeen v. "H.K. Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement of China" & Its Chairman Mr Szeto Wah and Others

CACV000090/1999

CACV 90/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 22164 OF 1998)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram: Hon. Leong, J.A. and Yuen, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 26 May 1999

Date of judgment: 26 May 1999

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Leong, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an appeal by Mr. Tse Jeekeen against the order of Cheung, J. on 24th March 1999 dismissing the appellant's appeal against a master's order striking out his statement of claim. In his statement of claim, the appellant pleaded "The plaintiff hereby charges the defendants for (I) Slandering the Central Government and its Leaders, (II) Inciting the Public Against the Central Government and its Leaders, (III) Attempt (including Advocacy) to Overthrow the Central Government, and (IV) Treasonable links to Foreign Power."

2. In the statement of claim, the appellant also asked the court to make a number of orders. He asked the court to: "(A) Annul the business (or organization) registrations of 'The Alliance of Hong Kong citizens in support of patriotic democratic movement of China' and the 'April 5 Action', and to enjoin members of those two groups not to, under other guise, carry out any activity which interferes with the politics in the mainland - because such activity contravenes the Basis Law, as well as other norm of conduct. (B) Order the defendants to publicly apologize to the Central Government and all its Leaders, especially to Prime Minister Li Peng and the late venerable Deng Xiao Ping, as well as the citizenry of Hong Kong; moreover, order the defendants not to stir up trouble over "June 4" again, ever. (C) Order the defendants to satisfy the plaintiff's compensation claims."

3. Cheung, J. in his short judgment dismissing the appeal said that the appellant was repeating his case pleaded in HCA 13938/97 which had been struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and it was an abuse of process to re-litigate on a matter which had been struck out.

4. The appellant's present action is indeed a repetition of his previous claim in HCA 13938/97. What is pleaded in the statement of claim in the present action is a mirror image of what was previously claimed. In that action, his statement of claim was struck out initially by the master for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and his subsequent appeals to the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal and his application to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal were all unsuccessful. Cheung, J. was therefore clearly right in the present case to say that the appellant was seeking to re-litigate on a matter which had been finally determined.

5. The appellant in his notice of appeal states the following grounds of appeal:

"1) This case is clearly of great public importance in Hong Kong;

2) Since this case has been received world-wide interests, hence, this case is also on trial in the Supreme Courts of 164 nations,

therefore this case must receive a fair trial in Hong Kong lest the Hong Kong citizen would be ill-served and the Hong Kong Judiciary would be disgraced at home and abroad."

6. In addition, Mr. Tse added that since the Chinese girl gymnast Sang Na was crippled last July in New York on the orders of George Bush personally, he must claim compensation for her and the first three defendants being accomplices of George Bush, should be ordered to pay compensation to this girl.

7. We do not see any substance in these grounds of appeal. The appellant simply does not have standing in bringing these proceedings. Despite all that he has submitted both in his grounds of appeal and orally before us, his case remains an abuse of the process of the court. The appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Representation:

Mr. Patrick Szeto, instructed by M/S Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners for Defendants (Respondents)

Tse Jeekeen, Plaintiff (Appellant) in person

Remarks:
On application by the Plaintiff to the Appeal Committee: Leave to appeal is refused. Please refer to Determination FAMV000019/1999.