NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG及另一人

NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG及另一人

The amended statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance because the alleged conduct consisted of vulgar insults and workplace complaints devoid of a sexual element, and any references to claimant's wife or mother did not make the claimant the object of sexual advances or attraction; the victimisation allegation about withholding a firearm did not allege differential treatment grounded in sex. Accordingly the court granted the strike‑out application and dismissed the claimant's amended claim against the first respondent.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 323
Parties
Claimant: Ng Hon Sum; First Respondent: Lam Man Lung; Second Respondent: Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Hong Kong Police Force
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 March 2024
Case Number
DCEO7/2023
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Claim (sex Discrimination Ordinance) / Strike Out Application Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Amended statement of claim struck out in respect of all claims against the first respondent.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Strike‑out for Failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
CH
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Sexual Harassment Victimisation Strike‑out for Failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause Abuse of Process Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ng Hon Sum

Claimant

Lam Man Lung

First Respondent

Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Hong Kong Police Force

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Claim (sex Discrimination Ordinance) / Strike Out Application Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment (requires sexual element)
  3. 3 Whether the conduct amounts to victimisation/sex discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim failed to disclose any reasonable cause under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance because the alleged conduct consisted of vulgar insults and workplace complaints devoid of a sexual element, and any references to claimant's wife or mother did not make the claimant the object of sexual advances or attraction; the victimisation allegation about withholding a firearm did not allege differential treatment grounded in sex. Accordingly the court granted the strike‑out application and dismissed the claimant's amended claim against the first respondent.

Court Disposition

Amended statement of claim struck out in respect of all claims against the first respondent.

Orders

  • Application of first respondent granted; amended statement of claim insofar as it relates to first respondent is struck out.
  • No interim costs order is made; parties to file any costs application or a proposed consent direction for handling costs within 14 days for further listing.