LAM HO YIN v. LI MING KEE AND OTHERS

LAM HO YIN v. LI MING KEE AND OTHERS

Anonymity summons dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of providing clear and cogent evidence of a psychiatric disorder or exceptional circumstances; open justice principle prevails and anonymity would prejudice respondents where substantive factual disputes exist; any derogation must be strictly necessary and was not shown.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 1927
Parties
Claimant: Lam Ho Yin; 1st Respondent: Li Ming Kee; 2nd Respondent: Poon Chi Yan; 3rd Respondent: Director-General of Trade and Industry; 4th Respondent: Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development; 5th Respondent: Secretary for Justice
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 November 2024
Case Number
DCEO5/2024
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action / Interlocutory Applications: Anonymity and Amendment Summons; Decision on Anonymity Summons
Outcome
Amendment Summons granted in terms (no objection by respondents 1-4); Anonymity Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Anonymity Order, Open Justice, Disability Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Weighing Exercise, Costs
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Employment Law Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Anonymity Order Open Justice Disability Discrimination +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Ho Yin

Claimant

Li Ming Kee

1st Respondent

Poon Chi Yan

2nd Respondent

Director-General of Trade and Industry

3rd Respondent

Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development

4th Respondent

Secretary for Justice

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action / Interlocutory Applications: Anonymity and Amendment Summons; Decision on Anonymity Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an anonymity order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether claimant has established a psychiatric disorder or medical condition sufficient to justify anonymity
  3. 3 Whether risk of social stigma or embarrassment constitutes exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Anonymity summons dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of providing clear and cogent evidence of a psychiatric disorder or exceptional circumstances; open justice principle prevails and anonymity would prejudice respondents where substantive factual disputes exist; any derogation must be strictly necessary and was not shown.

Court Disposition

Amendment Summons granted in terms (no objection by respondents 1-4); Anonymity Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment Summons granted in terms of the summons with costs of that application reserved (paragraph 6 of the Amendment Summons)
  • Anonymity Summons dismissed