YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS

An RPO and an RAO were appropriate and justified: Mr Yu's repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already finally determined demonstrated vexatious abuse of process; the orders sought (with specified deletions) were made to prevent further abuse and to protect the administration of justice; costs were ordered nisi against Mr Yu for the RPO/RAO hearings.

Citation
YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS
Parties
Applicant (hcmp 71/2006); Respondent (hccw 37/1998): Yu Man; Respondent (hcmp 71/2006): PricewaterhouseCoopers; Applicants (hccw 37/1998): The Liquidators of C.A. Pacific Securities Limited (in liquidation)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 2006
Case Number
HCMP71/2006
Procedural Posture
HCMP 71/2006 (miscellaneous Proceedings) and HCCW 37/1998 (companies (winding‑up) Action) / Hearing on Applications for Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Applications Order; Decision Delivered
Outcome
Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Applications Order granted in specified terms; costs ordered nisi against Mr Yu.
Legal Topics
Restricted Proceedings Order, Restricted Applications Order, Vexatious Litigation/abuse of Process, Finality of Judgments, Extension of Time, Client Classification
Source Language
ET
Civil Procedure Company Law Appellate Procedure Costs Law Public Law (human Rights/basic Law) Restricted Proceedings Order Restricted Applications Order Vexatious Litigation/abuse of Process +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Man

Applicant (hcmp 71/2006); Respondent (hccw 37/1998)

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Respondent (hcmp 71/2006)

The Liquidators of C.A. Pacific Securities Limited (in liquidation)

Applicants (hccw 37/1998)

Procedural Posture

HCMP 71/2006 (miscellaneous Proceedings) and HCCW 37/1998 (companies (winding‑up) Action) / Hearing on Applications for Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Applications Order; Decision Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) and Restricted Applications Order (RAO) should be made against Mr Yu
  2. 2 Whether Mr Yu's repeated litigation amounts to vexatious abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether earlier judgments (HCCW 37/1998 and CACV 347/2002) are null and void and can be re-litigated

Ratio Decidendi

An RPO and an RAO were appropriate and justified: Mr Yu's repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already finally determined demonstrated vexatious abuse of process; the orders sought (with specified deletions) were made to prevent further abuse and to protect the administration of justice; costs were ordered nisi against Mr Yu for the RPO/RAO hearings.

Court Disposition

Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Applications Order granted in specified terms; costs ordered nisi against Mr Yu.

Orders

  • Make order in terms of paragraph 2 of the summons of 15 February 2006, save that reference to HCCW 36/1998 is deleted
  • Make order in terms of paragraphs 4(a), 5, 6 and 7 of the summons of 15 February 2006, save that references therein to paragraph 3 are deleted