The Secretary for Justice v. Xu Ruibin also known as Ruibin Xu and Xu Rui Bin
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 449/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 March 2024.
1. This is the Secretary for Justice’s (“SJ”) application for a statutory order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 (“the Ordinance”) against the Respondent (“Mr Xu”) restraining him from instituting or continuing legal proceedings without leave of the Court.
Cites 4 cases
|
HCMP 449/2023 [2025] HKCFI 1772 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 449 OF 2023 _________________
_________________
_______________________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT _______________________________________ 1.This is the Secretary for Justice’s (“SJ”) application for a statutory order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 (“the Ordinance”) against the Respondent (“Mr Xu”) restraining him from instituting or continuing legal proceedings without leave of the Court. 2.Mr Xu is absent at the hearing. I am satisfied that personal service of the originating summons and other application papers had been effected on Mr Xu[1]. 3.SJ’s ground of application is that Mr Xu’s has commenced 17 unfocused and incomprehensible actions in the High Court and District Court during the period between 2014 and 2023 against a wide range of defendants including judicial officers, governmental bodies and foreign states etc.. 4.Section 27(1) and (2)(a) of the Ordinance provide that:
5.Ms Jess Chan, counsel for SJ, submitted that Mr Xu’s conduct has met the statutory condition in section 27(2)(a) that this court should restrain him from instituting legal proceedings in order to curb Mr Xu’s abuse of court process including any potential application to revive or continue with any of the actions. 6.Ms Chan prepared a table in her written submission setting out the 15 actions commenced by Mr Xu during the 10 weeks between 27 October 2022 and 6 January 2023 against a wide range of defendants as below:
7.As submitted by Ms Chan, the claims in those 15 actions share a common feature that they are unintelligible or wholly frivolous or scandalous. For instances:
8.The above instances of claims have been articulated and reworded by Ms Chan. I have been shown the images of the original handwritten versions of the Indorsement of Claims filed by Mr Xu and the contents of which are very difficult to comprehend. 9.At the time of this hearing, of the 17 actions instituted by Mr Xu, 11 have been struck out, 4 have been dormant, and 2 have been adjourned sine die with liberty to restore while striking out applications have been taken out. There remain four dormant court actions commenced against Mainland and foreign governmental bodies and individuals respectively. 10.Mr Xu lodged his appeals against 3 of the decisions striking out his actions but he did not appear in any of the appeal hearings and the appeals were dismissed. 11.Considering the above mentioned conduct of Mr Xu, it is more than apparent that Mr Xu has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the High Court and the District Court. 12.From reading the reasoned decisions of various judges and judicial officers[2] who have dealt with Mr Xu’s cases, his claims therein are untenable in law or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless. The fact that most of the actions have been struck out is good evidence of their vexatious nature. 13.The originating summons and the supporting affidavit both filed on 21 March 2023 were served on Mr Xu personally in Hong Kong on 23 March 2023. There was no response from Mr Xu. 14.Mr Xu was notified of the hearing originally scheduled for 13 September 2023 by personal service of the notice of appointment to hear the originating summons effected on 11 May 2023, before Mr Xu’s departure from Hong Kong on 17 May 2023. Any acts he intended to take in response to this application could have been taken before he had departed from Hong Kong. Further, there is no evidence available suggesting that he cannot return to Hong Kong to personally attend to these proceedings. I am satisfied that Mr Xu has been given sufficient opportunity to be heard but he has chosen not to respond to the present application against him. 15.In my judgment, an order under section 27 of the Ordinance is appropriate to restrain Mr Xu from instituting any legal proceedings in all levels of courts without the leave of the Court of First Instance and any and all legal proceedings instituted by Mr Xu in any court before the making of this order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance. 16.I give the orders in terms of the draft order submitted by SJ. 17.Costs of this application be to SJ.
Ms Chan Yuk Ching, Jess, Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) of Department of Justice for the Plaintiff The Defendant acting in person being absent |
Cases cited in this judgment