Read the full judgment text of HCA 1784/2011; HCA 1785/2011; HCA 2198/2011; HCA 194/2012; HCA 195/2012; HCA 251/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 16 November 2012 before Deputy High Court Judge Lok.
Civil procedure – striking out – defamation – misfeasance in public office – wrongful dismissal – res judicata – absolute and qualified privilege – malice – limitation – Restricted Proceedings Order – abuse of process – Court of First Instance – ICAC employment – Plaintiff employed by ICAC as Commission Against Corruption Officer from 2 December 1997, with employment terminated on 22 April 2000 – Plaintiff sued various former ICAC officers and the ICAC in 6 separate actions alleging defamatory statements in appraisal reports contributed to termination of employment and seeking damages equivalent to salaries and fringe benefits until retirement age, loss of pension, and other losses – Whether wrongful or unreasonable dismissal claims should be struck out as res judicata given Labour Tribunal determination that employment contract was for a fixed period and cessation was caused by effluxion of time – Held: yes, struck out as abuse of process and barred by res judicata – Whether defamation claims should be struck out for lack of evidence of malice to defeat qualified privilege – Held: yes, statements in appraisal reports and internal correspondence covered by qualified privilege as duty statements between superiors and recipients, and statements in affirmation for legal proceedings covered by absolute privilege, with no evidence of malice or dominant improper motive – Whether misfeasance in public office claim in Action (F) should be struck out – Held: yes, no evidence of targeted or untargeted malice – Whether claims are time-barred under 6-year limitation period – Held: yes, alleged defamatory statements were made in 1999 and 2000, well over 6 years before proceedings, with no reason to lift the time bar – Whether Restricted Proceedings Orders should be made – Held: yes, following Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Ltd, plaintiff demonstrated pattern of abuse by persistently re-litigating determined matters without viable grounds, taking out voluminous misconceived summonses, and pursuing time-barred claims – Action (C) had already been struck out on 23 February 2012 – All of plaintiff's other applications dismissed – Statements of Claim in Actions (A), (B), (D), (E) and (F) struck out, RPOs made in all 6 actions with Deputy High Court Judge Lok as designated judge, order nisi for costs in favour of ICAC to be made absolute 14 days after decision.
Legal issues: Whether wrongful or unreasonable dismissal claims should be struck out as res judicata · Whether defamation claims against the 1st-named defendants should be struck out · Whether the claim of misfeasance in public office in Action (F) should be struck out · Whether the claims against the ICAC are time-barred · Whether Restricted Proceedings Orders should be made against the plaintiff
Outcome: Statements of Claim or Amended Statements of Claim in Actions (A), (B), (D), (E) and (F) struck out; claims against the ICAC in those actions dismissed. Restricted Proceedings Orders made against the plaintiff in all 6 actions, with Deputy High Court Judge Lok as designated judge. All of the plaintiff's other summonses and applications dismissed. Order nisi for costs made in favour of the ICAC.
Cites 4 cases