Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Alexander K C Lee and Another

HCA2735/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2735 OF 2006

________________

BETWEEN

________________

Coram:  Hon. Lam J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:    26 June 2007

Date of Judgment:  26 June 2007

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1.The matter arises in this manner.  Originally, today is only to deal with an appeal against the Registrar’s decision in the context of HighCourt Action 789 of 2007.  However, on 25 June, that is yesterday, Miss Yuen, the Plaintiff in both actions, came to the court to seek to issue a summons, returnable today, asking for the following relief in the context of 2735 of 2006.

2.In her summons, she asked for an order from this court to decide whether Mr Alexander Lee was behind the screen to act for Mr Li Kam-chuen for the agreement signed by the two brothers other than Mr Johnnie Yam and decide whether an offence of perverting the course of justice has been committed by someone, especially the role of Mr Lau who called her on 1 February 2007.

3.She also asks for costs of the application be reserved and time for service be abridged in her summons.

4.In support of that summons, she prepared a draft affirmation that has yet to be sworn by her, together with a bundle of exhibits consisting of 52 pages.

5.The Registry did not allow her to issue the summons.  Let me mention this at this stage: a litigant cannot expect the Registry to allow someone to slip in a summons in the last minute even though he might have a hearing date for another matter.  It is always up to the court to decide whether a further summons should be dealt with at the same hearing.  Instead, the Registry suggested to Miss Yuen that she may raise it with me this morning and it is for me to decide whether I will consider this new application in the circumstances.

6.So the net position, as far as the court is concerned, is that this summons has not yet been issued.  But Miss Yuen, obviously wishing the application to be entertained this morning, wrote to the solicitors acting for the Defendants in High Court Action 2735 of 2006 and Mr Johnnie Yam.  In the letter dated 25 June 2007, Miss Yuen said this to the solicitors for the Defendants.  In paragraph 1 of that letter, she informed the Defendants, through their solicitors, and Mr Yam that she would give the summons to this court for consideration during today’s hearing and she invited the Defendants in HCA 2735 of 2006 and Mr Yam to attend today’s hearing.

7.By implication, by serving the papers on them, the solicitors for the Defendants and Mr Yam were invited to appear this morning.  When the hearing started this morning, I indicated to Miss Yuen that writing a letter is not the proper way to start an application.  In any event, I do not see any justification for having this application to be dealt with at today’s hearing.  Thereupon, Miss Yuen invited the court to ignore the letter and she said she wished to have it to be heard on another date.

8.However, because of what she has done, the Defendants in HCA 2735 have instructed their lawyers to appear this morning and costs have been incurred.   Mr Yam also appeared.

9.Since it is because of Miss Yuen’s action which occasioned the Defendants and Mr Yam to incur these costs, even though she wished the matter to be dealt with on another date, Miss Yuen will have to pay for the costs of today as far as the Defendants and Mr Yam are concerned.

10.Moreover, I have the opportunity of going through with Miss Yuen the basis of her intended application.  Having heard from her, I do not discern any proper factual or legal basis for the application.  To start with, I fail to see how she could have any claim against anybody other than perhaps the two brothers with regard to the $50,000.

11.As I have explained to her during the course of the hearing, I do not see any ground for claiming against the solicitors in respect of what they have done for their respective client.  There is no legal basis whatsoever for her claim.  Procedurally, there is also no justification for asking the court to grant that sort of relief by way of an interlocutory application.

12.It seems to me that the application is obviously an abuse of process.

13.Bearing in mind the nature of the application and the manner in which it was taken out and the costs consequences that may cause to the other parties as a result of the way in which Miss Yuen handled litigation and also bearing in mind the express intention of Miss Yuen of escalating costs (although she kept saying that she wanted to save costs but her actual action speaks for itself in terms of the escalation of costs in all sorts of proceedings) and her threat of appeal in terms of further escalation of costs, I have no problem whatsoever in concluding that the action of Miss Yuen is vexatious and an abuse of process.

14.In the circumstances, I think it is right that this sort of abuses should not be allowed and the Defendants should be protected by a Restrictive Application Order.  I am going to make a Restrictive Application Order under Practice Direction 11.3 in the context of High Court Action 2735 of 2006.

15.In accordance with paragraph 6 of Practice Direction 11.3, I am going to order that Miss Yuen is prohibited from making any further application to the court in High Court Action 2735 of 2006, whether before or after judgment, without the leave of this court being first obtained.

16.That all applications for leave to issue an application in High Court Action 2735 of 2006 must be made in writing to this court without giving notice of the application to the intended respondent and all RAO leave applications and all matters ancillary thereto should be dealt with on papers without any oral hearing unless this court otherwise directs.

17.Where leave to make the substantive application is granted, service of the order giving leave must accompany service of the substantive application in question which should be heard by a judge and not a master unless the judge otherwise directs.

18.That, if contrary to the RAO, Miss Yuen seeks to issue an application in High Court Action 2735 of 2006 without prior leave of the court, the purported application should forthwith be referred by the Registry to a master for such application to be dismissed in accordance with the RAO.

19.That, if contrary to the RAO, Miss Yuen purports to serve on the Respondent any application in High Court Action 2735 of 2006 without at the same time serving on the respondent a copy of an order giving leave to issue such application, such application should automatically stand dismissed so that neither the respondent nor the court would be required to take any steps in response.

20.As regards the costs, we spent two and a half hours this morning dealing with this matter and having heard submissions on the quantum, I order the Plaintiff, Miss Yuen, to pay the costs of the Defendants and such costs are fixed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at $12,400.

Representation:

Plaintiff, in person, present

Miss Audrey Phua of P C Woo & Co., for the 1st and 2nd Defendants