彭鳯琼及另二人 對 衞生署及另八人

彭鳯琼及另二人 對 衞生署及另八人

The court held the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to frivolous and vexatious litigation and an abuse of process in light of prior proceedings; accordingly the strike out and dismissal order was upheld, defendants were not required to file defences and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal.

Citation
彭鳯琼及另二人 對 衞生署及另八人
Parties
First Plaintiff: 彭鳯琼; Second Plaintiff: 馮九; Third Plaintiff: 馮嘉琳; First Defendant: 衞生署; Second Defendant: 亞皆老街賽馬會學童牙科診所; Third Defendant: 鄭雪儀; Fourth Defendant: 李黃美賢; Fifth Defendant: 方黃潤嫦; Sixth Defendant: 陳祖貽; Seventh Defendant: 鍾彭慧姬; Eighth Defendant: 鍾碧儀; Ninth Defendant: 李志明
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 April 2016
Case Number
HCA153/2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Rehearing of Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim and Dismissal of Proceedings
Outcome
appeal dismissed; original strike out/dismissal order upheld
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation, Order 18 R19, Costs
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Administrative Law Strike Out Abuse of Process Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation Order 18 R19 Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

彭鳯琼

First Plaintiff

馮九

Second Plaintiff

馮嘉琳

Third Plaintiff

衞生署

First Defendant

亞皆老街賽馬會學童牙科診所

Second Defendant

鄭雪儀

Third Defendant

李黃美賢

Fourth Defendant

方黃潤嫦

Fifth Defendant

陳祖貽

Sixth Defendant

鍾彭慧姬

Seventh Defendant

鍾碧儀

Eighth Defendant

李志明

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Rehearing of Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim and Dismissal of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process warranting strike out and dismissal
  3. 3 Whether judgment should be registered against the defendants and whether defendants should be required to file defences

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to frivolous and vexatious litigation and an abuse of process in light of prior proceedings; accordingly the strike out and dismissal order was upheld, defendants were not required to file defences and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; original strike out/dismissal order upheld

Orders

  • The appeals by the first and second plaintiffs are dismissed
  • The order striking out the first to third plaintiffs' statement of claim and dismissing the proceedings is upheld