Li Sheng-wu Professor of Chu Hai College v. Chiang Mo-sin President of Chu Hai College

HCA003272/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 3272 OF 1973

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

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

Coram: Trainor, J.

Date of Judgment: 8th February, 1974.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Registrar Mr. Jones whereby he ordered to be struck out on the application of the defendant, the plaintiff's claim endorsed on a writ of summons issued on the 30th of October of last year. The claim as set out in the summons is one that is extremely difficult to appreciate. But a careful analysis offers would suggest that the claim is for breach of contract and for defamation. Perhaps it is extending it a bit far to say that this is for a breach of contract in so far as the appellant, as the plaintiff, has maintained in the statement of claim and before me that his claim is based on the withholding by the defendant of a renewal of a contract for the year 1973/74.

2. The plaintiff is a professor in Chu Hai College and, it would appear, has been engaged annually, that is to say his original contract was for one year only but was renewed each year up to the year 1973/74. The year appeared to extend from the 1st August to the 31st July. So far as professorial work is concerned the last time he taught in the college was in July 1973 and he prepared the examination papers for the examinations which were held on the 29th of July 1973. He would maintain that certain translation work part of which was given to him to do in 1973 extended, so far as he was concerned, to the 2nd of August 1973 and constituted a renewal of the contract for the year 1973/74.

3. With regard to the claim for defamation so far as it can be identified at all would appear to be with respect to phrases such as: "Starve him. Drive him out of educational circle" alleged to have been said at a meeting organized by the defendant; although it is not clear that the words were used by the defendant or other persons who attended this meeting.

4. The learned Registrar having heard what was offered held that the proceedings that had been instituted disclosed no cause of action and that they were vexatious. I am afraid I cannot see any reason why I should differ from the conclusion of the learned Registrar. I have heard what the appellant has had to say, indeed I have listened to him a lot longer than I would have done had he been represented professionally, and I have tried to extract from him any possible grounds for his allegation of defamation, or that would support his contention that the contract was renewed by implication by reason of the work he has done in preparing the examination papers or by translations. I am afraid that there is nothing he has said that would enable me to discern in his statement of claim a cause of action arising from a contract between the appellant and respondent. The relationship between the appellant and the respondent which heretofore was based on an annual contract contained no obligation whatever on the respondent to renew it. And even though the respondent may have said, as the appellant alleges, but of which I have no proof, that he, the respondent, had said to others that he intended to renew the contract but did not say so to the plaintiff, that does not in any way establish the contract existed between them or an obligation on the part of the respondent to renew the old one.

5. So far as the defamation is concerned there is nothing whatever in the statement of claim that establishes that there was a slander of the appellant. The words that he has cited may indeed have been abusive and it may well have resulted in a very considerable amount of mental anguish so far as the appellant is concerned but abusive language does not give rise to an action for slander.

6. There is nothing that I can usefully add to what the Registrar has said when he be said in conclusion of his judgment: "The statement of claim as drawn is clearly unarguable for by no stretch of imagination does it reveal a reasonable cause of action. Accordingly I dismiss this application with costs and I certify for counsel."

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Robert Wei instructed by Francis Chaine & Co. for Respondent.