YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

The plaintiff's statement of claim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because it sought effectively to re-litigate issues already finally decided in earlier proceedings concerning Mr Lee; the court granted a restrictive proceedings order preventing further abusive litigation without leave, allowed only a narrowly defined claim against the 8th defendant for injury to feelings under s66 PDPO to be pursued with leave, and made a costs order nisi on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff.

Citation
YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Yuen Oi Yee Lisa; 1st Defendant: Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi; 2nd Defendant: Thapana Sirivadhanabhakdi; 3rd Defendant: Matthew Kichodhan; 4th Defendant: Michael Chye; 5th Defendant: Lee Man Hong Andy; 6th Defendant: Thai Beverage Public Company Limited; 7th Defendant: International Beverage Holdings Limited; 8th Defendant: Best Spirits Company Limited; 1st Intended Party: Ma Wah Yan Billy; 2nd Intended Party: Wong Chi Leung; 3rd Intended Party: Hobson & Ma; 4th Intended Party: Au-Yeung Yau Ming Philip
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Case Number
DCCJ1914/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Under Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance (district Court) / Interlocutory Hearing on Defendants' Strike Out Application and Application for Restrictive Proceedings Order; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out and action dismissed; DCCJ1915/2015 struck out; Restrictive Proceedings Order granted; costs ordered on indemnity basis nisi against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance S66, Strike Out (order 18 R19 Rdc), Restrictive Proceedings Order (rpo), Res Judicata/privity, Legal Aid Stay (legal Aid Ordinance S15(4)), Costs Indemnity
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Data Protection/privacy Law Abuse of Process/vexatious Litigation Employment Law Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance S66 Strike Out (order 18 R19 Rdc) Restrictive Proceedings Order (rpo) Res Judicata/privity +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuen Oi Yee Lisa

Plaintiff

Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi

1st Defendant

Thapana Sirivadhanabhakdi

2nd Defendant

Matthew Kichodhan

3rd Defendant

Michael Chye

4th Defendant

Lee Man Hong Andy

5th Defendant

Thai Beverage Public Company Limited

6th Defendant

International Beverage Holdings Limited

7th Defendant

Best Spirits Company Limited

8th Defendant

Ma Wah Yan Billy

1st Intended Party

Wong Chi Leung

2nd Intended Party

Hobson & Ma

3rd Intended Party

Au-Yeung Yau Ming Philip

4th Intended Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Under Personal Data (privacy) Ordinance (district Court) / Interlocutory Hearing on Defendants' Strike Out Application and Application for Restrictive Proceedings Order; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate matters previously decided (res judicata/privity)
  3. 3 Whether a Restrictive Proceedings Order is warranted and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's statement of claim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because it sought effectively to re-litigate issues already finally decided in earlier proceedings concerning Mr Lee; the court granted a restrictive proceedings order preventing further abusive litigation without leave, allowed only a narrowly defined claim against the 8th defendant for injury to feelings under s66 PDPO to be pursued with leave, and made a costs order nisi on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out and action dismissed; DCCJ1915/2015 struck out; Restrictive Proceedings Order granted; costs ordered on indemnity basis nisi against plaintiff

Orders

  • Statement of claim in DCCJ 1914/2015 struck out under Order 18 r19 and inherent jurisdiction and action dismissed
  • Indorsement on writ in DCCJ 1915/2015 struck out and that action dismissed with no order as to costs