Andrew Kwong v. Benny Chia and Others

HCA003023/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Coram: the Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers

Date of hearing: 13 October 1997

Date of handing down of reasons for judgment: 15 October 1997

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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

1. In December 1996, the plaintiff applied to the Hong Kong Arts Development Council for a project grant. This application was considered and refused. The plaintiff was not happy with this decision. He issued a writ against the defendants, who are the members of the Visual Arts Committee of the Council. The defendants applied to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. They also complained that it was frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of the court. This application was heard by the Master on 17 July 1997. He granted it. The plaintiff now appeals against this decision.

2. The plaintiff's statement of claim is, essentially, a complaint that the decision made on his application to the council was wrong. At the hearing of the appeal before me, I explained to the plaintiff that he could not bring an action on the basis that this decision was wrong. That was not a matter for the courts. It cannot be said that the decision was so unreasonable that it was open to challenge. It appeared from my discussion with the defendant that his only real complaint was that the first defendant was prejudiced against him, and should not have taken part in the decision. He did suggest that, otherwise, his application was not properly considered because he was not given sufficient time to present his case. However, it transpired that everything that he wished to bring to the attention of the Committee was contained in the written documents that he presented. There was nothing that he wished to add that he did not have the opportunity of present. I pointed out to the plaintiff that the first defendant says that he did not take any part in making the decision, and the plaintiff conceded that he had no basis at all suggesting that this was not so.

3. Clearly, the statement of claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action. There is nothing said in it that could, if proved, possibly give any ground for holding the defendants liable to the plaintiff. The purpose of my discussion with the plaintiff was to ascertain whether, in fact, he had any reasonable cause of action that he could make in an amended statement of claim. It was clear from what the plaintiff told me that this was not so. I told the plaintiff at the hearing that this was my view and, for these reasons, I had to dismiss his appeal with costs. I told him, however, that I would reduce my reasons to writing so that he could consider them. These are those reasons.

Representation:

The plaintiff appeared in person.

Mr Stephen Powner, of Messrs Stevenson Wong & Lai, for the defendants.