NG HON SUM v. LAM MAN LUNG AND ANOTHER

NG HON SUM v. LAM MAN LUNG AND ANOTHER

The alleged remarks were ordinary Cantonese insults in the context of a political feud and heated quarrel and did not constitute unwelcome sexual advances, requests or conduct of a sexual nature under the SDO; the EOC's prior finding supported insufficient evidence of sexual conduct; the 2nd Respondent had taken reasonably practicable preventive and investigative steps under s46(3) SDO, so the claim against the 2nd Respondent was frivolous/misconceived and costs were properly awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 415
Parties
Claimant: NG HON SUM; 1st Respondent: LAM MAN LUNG; 2nd Respondent: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HONG KONG POLICE FORCE
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
DCEO7/2023
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination Ordinance) / Costs Application After Discontinuance (summons for Costs)
Outcome
Claim against 2nd Respondent found frivolous; costs awarded to 2nd Respondent
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Costs, Striking Out/frivolous Claims
Source Language
EN
Sex Discrimination Employment Law Civil Procedure (costs) Sexual Harassment Vicarious Liability Costs Striking Out/frivolous Claims

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG HON SUM

Claimant

LAM MAN LUNG

1st Respondent

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HONG KONG POLICE FORCE

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination Ordinance) / Costs Application After Discontinuance (summons for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged conduct amounted to "sexual harassment" under SDO
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were frivolous or malicious so as to justify an order for costs under section 73B(3) DCO
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent (Police/Secretary for Justice) was vicariously liable and had a defence under s46(3) SDO

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged remarks were ordinary Cantonese insults in the context of a political feud and heated quarrel and did not constitute unwelcome sexual advances, requests or conduct of a sexual nature under the SDO; the EOC's prior finding supported insufficient evidence of sexual conduct; the 2nd Respondent had taken reasonably practicable preventive and investigative steps under s46(3) SDO, so the claim against the 2nd Respondent was frivolous/misconceived and costs were properly awarded to the 2nd Respondent.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd Respondent found frivolous; costs awarded to 2nd Respondent

Orders

  • Award costs to 2nd Respondent, summarily assessed at HK$56,000