Zhang Yi v. Hunton & Williams

HCA010998/1999

HCA 10998/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 10998 OF 1999

____________

____________

AND

HCA 12364/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 12364 OF 1999

____________

Coram: Deputy Judge Li in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 10 September 1999

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 17 September 1999

_________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_________________________

These are two identical summonses taken out by the Plaintiff in the two actions for interlocutory injunction against the separate Defendants to restrain them from contacting members of the family of the Plaintiff. According to the identical affirmations filed by the Plaintiff in support, a letter was sent to the Plaintiff's wife, Professor Dong, in Mainland China announcing the promotion of a Thai lawyer from associate to partner of the Defendant firm. The Plaintiff says in the affirmations that sending this announcement to Professor Dong constituted harassment to her and has been "causing confusions, embarrassments and distress" to the Plaintiff and to his wife.

2.The actual text of the announcement exhibited is as follows:-

"Chanmanu Sumawong joined Hunton & Williams in December 1997 after six years with International Legal Counsellors Thailand. He is considered one of the preeminent energy and project development and finance lawyers in Thailand and is also a leading privatization and corporatization legal adviser. Khun Chanmanu was lead legal adviser on the successful sales of the Rayong and Khanom power plants to Electricity Generating Public Company Limited and recently has trained and developed a group of Thai lawyers to assist him on the asset disposition and privatization by EGAT, the Thai national utility, of the Ratchaburi power project, the restructuring of Thailand's largest cogeneration power producer, CoCo, and the development and financing of the 713 MW Bowin (IPP) power project. He has also been involved in various corporate undertakings for firm clients such as Dimon, Philip Morris, and Pepsi Co.

Before entering private practice, Khun Chanmanu had been a judge in various Thai provincial and civil court systems, lastly as Secretary of the Central Labour Court. He received his LL.M. and M.C.L. (American Practice) from George Washington University and LL.B (Second Class Honors) from Thammasat (Thailand) University School of Law. He speaks fluent English and Thai."

There is no letter or person to person message as such.

3.The Plaintiff cited various parts of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4 and the American Cynanimide case to argue that I have power to grant the injunction. Of course the court has power to grant an interlocutory injunction. The question is: is there cause for the court to invoke its power? First, the announcement is a perfectly innocuous thing. Secondly, the person promoted started with the Defendant firm in December 1997 as an associate. The Plaintiff started in July 1998. It would still appear normal for that other person to be promoted ahead of the Plaintiff by seniority had the Plaintiff not been dismissed. It is not even obliquely libellous. An affirmation from the Defendants' side has explained that the announcement was sent to Professor Dong due to some failure to update the mailing list.

4.As Mr. Burns for the Defendants said, the applications are wholly frivolous. There is no just cause for complaint. In any event, the Plaintiff could have written to the Defendants first pointing out the mistake, then, if the Defendants did not cause the mailing list to be corrected, perhaps there might be justification to apply for an injunction. Besides, I did not see the need for two identical applications.

5.In the premises, I had no difficulty in dismissing both applications.

6.Mr. Burns sought costs on indemnity basis. He is probably right. But, giving credit to the Plaintiff for the fact that he is not a qualified lawyer in Hong Kong, I thought it is fair that the Plaintiff should bear ordinary costs with a warning that he should not conduct litigation in person with just a little knowledge. A little knowledge is worse than no knowledge. Accordingly, I ordered costs of both applications to the Defendants to be taxed if not agreed and to be paid forthwith.

Representation:

Plaintiff Zhang Yi, In person - (Present)

Mr. Ashley Burns of M/s Tang Tso & Lau for the Defendants