吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人

吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人

The summons to discharge the 23 December 2011 restrictive litigation order was dismissed because the applicant provided no credible or new evidence of a material change in circumstances; prior repeated refusals of leave demonstrated the order's continuing necessity to prevent vexatious or ungrounded proceedings.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3485
Parties
First Plaintiff: 吳艷嫦; Second Plaintiff: 鄭根容; First Defendant: 李雪芬主任; Second Defendant: 李日華律師
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Case Number
HCA1164/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Discharge a Restrictive Litigation Order / Summons Hearing / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed; restrictive litigation order remains in force
Legal Topics
Restrictive Litigation Order, Vexatious Litigant Order, Interlocutory Application, Application to Discharge Order, Costs Assessment
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Litigation Bankruptcy Related Proceedings Costs Restrictive Litigation Order Vexatious Litigant Order Interlocutory Application Application to Discharge Order +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

吳艷嫦

First Plaintiff

鄭根容

Second Plaintiff

李雪芬主任

First Defendant

李日華律師

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Discharge a Restrictive Litigation Order / Summons Hearing / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2011 restrictive litigation order should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether there is a material change in circumstances warranting discharge of the order
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to discharge the 23 December 2011 restrictive litigation order was dismissed because the applicant provided no credible or new evidence of a material change in circumstances; prior repeated refusals of leave demonstrated the order's continuing necessity to prevent vexatious or ungrounded proceedings.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; restrictive litigation order remains in force

Orders

  • Summons to discharge the restrictive litigation order dismissed
  • Restrictive litigation order dated 23 December 2011 remains in force