Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 145/2007 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment before Mimmie Chan.
Civil procedure – vexatious litigant – Restricted Proceedings Order – Restricted Application Order – Practice Direction 11.3 – whether plaintiff a vexatious litigant who has abused and is likely to continue abusing the process of the court – whether RPO and RAO should be granted and in what scope – judgment in default of defence on tax counterclaim for assessed tax of HK$831,600 in DCCJ 4492/2004 – plaintiff's alleged belief that proceedings stayed under verbal agreement with Senior Government Counsel – plaintiff issued at least 16 further actions against Inland Revenue Department and its officers, judges who had ruled against him, Senior Government Counsel, a law clerk and a law costs draftsman – most proceedings stemming from or relating to Default Judgment and related hearings – plaintiff exhausted all appeal avenues in respect of Default Judgment – application to set aside Default Judgment dismissed by Judge Chow – leave to appeal refused on paper by Cheung JA and by Yuen and Tang JJA in HCMP 2032/2005 – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed – multiple applications for stay of execution and stay of proceedings dismissed – HCA 2132/2005 against Mr Ho and IRD struck out by Registrar Chan and appeal dismissed by Chung J – court applied guidance of Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v. Max Share Ltd [2005] 1 HKLRD 473 on features of vexatious litigants including institution of hopeless claims, misconceived appeals, refusal to accept adverse judgments, and persistent re-litigation – court noted constitutional right of access to court under common law and article 35 of the Basic Law does not include a right to abuse the court's process – first issue held: plaintiff is a vexatious litigant who has abused and is likely to continue abusing the process of the court as he had no viable cause of action against judges or opposing counsel and was duplicating claims against the IRD – second issue held: RPO granted in modified form covering specified actions relating to or arising from the Counterclaim in DCCJ 4492/2004 and related proceedings, but excluding DCCJ 4093/2006, DCCJ 5483/2006, DCCJ 2805/2007 and DCCJ 2806/2007 where underlying issues had not been judicially determined – RAO granted to prohibit further or pursued applications in DCCJ 4492/2004, DCCJ 3884/2006 and DCCJ 3915/2006 – order nisi for costs of the Defendant's summons dated 17 August 2007 against the Plaintiff.
Legal issues: Whether the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant who has abused and is likely to continue abusing the process of the court · Class of actions and applications to be prohibited under the RPO and RAO
Outcome: Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Application Order made against the Plaintiff; costs order nisi made against the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant
Cited by 56 cases · Cites 9 cases