DR PAUL KI PING KI AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

DR PAUL KI PING KI AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

The Master’s order was correct and is affirmed: the defamation claim is time‑barred under s.4(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance and the pleaded matters are identical or substantially similar to issues determined in earlier proceedings; the claim alleging wrongful refusal to register the drug is a public law matter requiring judicial review and had been previously struck out, therefore striking out the Statement of Claim was proper.

Citation
DR PAUL KI PING KI AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Dr Paul Ki Ping Ki; Appellant/plaintiff: Hong Kong Washington Company; Respondent/defendant: Secretary for Justice
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 April 2000
Case Number
HCA10/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Striking Out Order (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Barnes' order striking out the Statement of Claim affirmed.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Limitation Period (s.4(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance Cap.347), Judicial Review, Refusal to Register Drug, Publication, Duplicative Proceedings/abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Defamation Administrative Law Public Law Limitation Striking Out Limitation Period (s.4(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance Cap.347) Judicial Review Refusal to Register Drug +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Paul Ki Ping Ki

Appellant/plaintiff

Hong Kong Washington Company

Appellant/plaintiff

Secretary for Justice

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Master's Striking Out Order (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defamation claim is time‑barred under s.4(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance (Cap.347)
  2. 2 Whether the claims are identical or substantially similar to issues litigated in earlier actions and therefore liable to be struck out as duplicative or an abuse
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to register the drug is a public law matter that must be pursued by judicial review rather than private action

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s order was correct and is affirmed: the defamation claim is time‑barred under s.4(1)(a) Limitation Ordinance and the pleaded matters are identical or substantially similar to issues determined in earlier proceedings; the claim alleging wrongful refusal to register the drug is a public law matter requiring judicial review and had been previously struck out, therefore striking out the Statement of Claim was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Barnes' order striking out the Statement of Claim affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order nisi that the costs of this appeal are to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed (R.S.C. Ord. 42 r. 5B(6))