Y 對 B及另五人

Y 對 B及另五人

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the strike-out was properly grounded in lack of pleaded cause of action, absence of objective evidence for alleged sexual harassment and malicious/unmeritorious pleading; interim costs order was properly made but varied downward to party and party assessment totalling HKD100,000 (DCEO1) and HKD110,000 (DCEO2).

Citation
[2025] HKDC 21
Parties
Claimant: Y; Respondent: A; First Respondent: B; Second Respondent: C; Third Respondent: D; Fourth Respondent: E; Fifth Respondent: F; Sixth Respondent: G
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2025
Case Number
DCEO2/2024
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities (sex Discrimination) Litigation / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Interim Costs Order (post Strike Out Decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; application to vary interim costs order granted in part; interim costs order varied to specified amounts on party and party basis
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Permission to Appeal, Frivolous and Vexatious Claims, Interim Costs Orders, Party and Party Costs Vs Indemnity
Source Language
CH
Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Permission to Appeal Frivolous and Vexatious Claims Interim Costs Orders +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

Claimant

A

Respondent

B

First Respondent

C

Second Respondent

D

Third Respondent

E

Fourth Respondent

F

Fifth Respondent

G

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities (sex Discrimination) Litigation / Application for Leave to Appeal and Variation of Interim Costs Order (post Strike Out Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the claim was frivolous or vexatious such that costs should be awarded under s73B(3)
  3. 3 Whether the interim costs order should be varied and on what basis (party and party or indemnity)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the strike-out was properly grounded in lack of pleaded cause of action, absence of objective evidence for alleged sexual harassment and malicious/unmeritorious pleading; interim costs order was properly made but varied downward to party and party assessment totalling HKD100,000 (DCEO1) and HKD110,000 (DCEO2).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; application to vary interim costs order granted in part; interim costs order varied to specified amounts on party and party basis

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Interim costs order varied