HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

The court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action for misfeasance because it failed to plead the required elements of subjective bad faith or knowledge of probable injury; the action repeated grounds already considered and rejected by the Administrative Appeal Board, was vexatious and an abuse of process, and the enforcement notice was properly justified under the Ordinance, so the Statement of Claim and action were properly struck out.

Citation
HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hui Kee Chun; Defendant/respondent: The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Case Number
HCA1980/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages Against Public Authority Under Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance / Appeal From Master Yu's Striking Out; Rehearing in High Court (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Statement of Claim struck out; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance, Enforcement Notice, DPP1, DPP3, Section 58 Exemption, Section 52 Exemption, Section 61 Exemption, Misfeasance in Public Office, Strike Out, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Data Protection Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Law Privacy Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance Enforcement Notice DPP1 +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hui Kee Chun

Plaintiff/appellant

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages Against Public Authority Under Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance / Appeal From Master Yu's Striking Out; Rehearing in High Court (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant unlawfully investigated or issued an enforcement notice
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff breached DPP1 and DPP3 of the Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether exemptions under sections 52, 58 or 61 apply

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action for misfeasance because it failed to plead the required elements of subjective bad faith or knowledge of probable injury; the action repeated grounds already considered and rejected by the Administrative Appeal Board, was vexatious and an abuse of process, and the enforcement notice was properly justified under the Ordinance, so the Statement of Claim and action were properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim struck out; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Statement of Claim struck out and action dismissed
  • Appeal dismissed