Lee Chick Choi v. The Hong Kong Golf Club

On 14 August 2026, the Court of Appeal (Anthony Chan JA and Coleman J) handed down judgment in Lee Chick Choi v. The Hong Kong Golf Club, CAMP 329/2023 & CAMP 358/2023, [2026] HKCA 682, dismissing all of the claimant's applications and ordering him to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Mr Martin Kok of Counsel, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, acted for the successful Club.

Lee, acting in person, brought a disability discrimination claim under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap 487) against his former employer, the Hong Kong Golf Club. He alleged that his September 2016 termination as Assistant Chief Marshal/Bag Drop was connected to a left shoulder condition that had developed in April 2016. The Club maintained the dismissal was solely for unsatisfactory work performance. After trial before HHJ Jonathan Wong, the claim was dismissed ([2023] HKDC 515), with costs ordered on an indemnity basis. Lee's applications to vary that costs order, stay execution, and obtain leave to appeal were all rejected by the Judge ([2023] HKDC 1318), who also summarily assessed costs against Lee ([2023] HKDC 1672).

Lee then pursued two sets of applications in the Court of Appeal. CAMP 329/2023 challenged the substantive judgment and was accompanied by four evidence summonses and a re-re-amendment application. CAMP 358/2023 challenged the costs decision but was withdrawn by Lee partway through.

Holdings

The Court held that: (1) all four evidence summonses were dismissed, as the materials sought (complaints against the Judge's clerk, opposing counsel, and a solicitor; YouTube videos; and "without prejudice" correspondence) were either irrelevant to the appeal or failed the Ladd v Marshall conditions, particularly the requirement that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial; (2) the re-re-amendment summons fell away with the evidence summonses; (3) none of Lee's five draft grounds of appeal identified any palpable error in the Judge's findings, with the Court emphasising that the threshold for overturning factual findings is "very high" and that merely repeating trial submissions is insufficient; (4) the bias and judicial copying allegations were groundless, the Judge having expressly stated he did not rely on findings from other proceedings; and (5) the subpoena challenge was an abuse of process, as Lee had previously abandoned that ground in earlier proceedings ([2023] HKCA 938).

The result: all applications dismissed, with costs on an indemnity basis to be summarily assessed against Lee in both CAMPs. The Court also made an Order 59 rule 2A(8) order barring reconsideration at an oral hearing.

Practitioners advising litigants in person should warn clients that pursuing multiple unmeritorious leave applications, particularly those relying on irrelevant evidence or previously abandoned grounds, will attract indemnity costs orders. The judgment reinforces that the Ladd v Marshall conditions are applied strictly, and that bare assertions of error, without identification of palpable mistakes, will not satisfy the reasonable prospect of success threshold.