YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LI KAM CHUEN

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LI KAM CHUEN

The court found the plaintiff had repeatedly initiated hopeless, duplicative and oppressive proceedings, including conduct akin to unauthorised practice of law and issuing self-serving debit notes; such conduct justified dismissal of claims and the imposition of an extensive Restricted Proceedings Order and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LI KAM CHUEN
Parties
Plaintiff: Yuen Oi Yee Lisa; 1st Defendant (hca 2735); 4th Defendant (hca 1242): Alexander K.C. Lee; Defendant (hca 328); Defendant (dccj 600 Discontinued): Li Kam Chuen; 1st Defendant (hca 789; HCA 1242): Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant (hca 1242): Johnnie Yam; 3rd Defendant (hca 1242; Discontinued in HCA 789): Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co.; 2nd Defendant (hca 2735) Dismissed: Lo Chan & Leung; 2nd Defendant (hca 789) Discontinued: Lau Chan Ko & Co.; 4th Defendant (hca 789) Dismissed: Tai, Tang & Chong; 5th Defendant (hca 1242): Li & Partners; 6th Defendant (hca 1242): Flourish Property Agency Ltd.; 7th Defendant (hca 1242): Sammi Wai Yee Chow; 8th Defendant (hca 1242): Steven Wai Keung Poon
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2007
Case Number
HCA328/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation – Striking Out Applications and Applications for Restricted Application Order and Restricted Proceedings Order / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Decision; Striking Out Orders and Imposition of RAO and RPO (17–22 August 2007)
Outcome
Claims dismissed against multiple defendants; extensive RAO and RPO imposed requiring prior leave; costs awarded to defendants.
Legal Topics
Restricted Proceedings Order, Restricted Application Order, Striking Out, Unauthorised Practice of Law, Duplication of Proceedings, Costs Assessment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigation Defamation Professional Negligence Costs Restricted Proceedings Order Restricted Application Order Striking Out +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuen Oi Yee Lisa

Plaintiff

Alexander K.C. Lee

1st Defendant (hca 2735); 4th Defendant (hca 1242)

Li Kam Chuen

Defendant (hca 328); Defendant (dccj 600 Discontinued)

Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant (hca 789; HCA 1242)

Johnnie Yam

2nd Defendant (hca 1242)

Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co.

3rd Defendant (hca 1242; Discontinued in HCA 789)

Lo Chan & Leung

2nd Defendant (hca 2735) Dismissed

Lau Chan Ko & Co.

2nd Defendant (hca 789) Discontinued

Tai, Tang & Chong

4th Defendant (hca 789) Dismissed

Li & Partners

5th Defendant (hca 1242)

Flourish Property Agency Ltd.

6th Defendant (hca 1242)

Sammi Wai Yee Chow

7th Defendant (hca 1242)

Steven Wai Keung Poon

8th Defendant (hca 1242)

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation – Striking Out Applications and Applications for Restricted Application Order and Restricted Proceedings Order / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Decision; Striking Out Orders and Imposition of RAO and RPO (17–22 August 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's multiple claims were vexatious, unmeritorious and abusive of process
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend RAO/RPO to cover future actions by the plaintiff and require prior leave
  3. 3 Whether an unqualified person intermeddling in litigation poses a risk to administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff had repeatedly initiated hopeless, duplicative and oppressive proceedings, including conduct akin to unauthorised practice of law and issuing self-serving debit notes; such conduct justified dismissal of claims and the imposition of an extensive Restricted Proceedings Order and Restricted Application Order requiring prior written leave of the designated judge for fresh proceedings or applications to prevent further abuse while balancing the plaintiff's right of access to court; costs were awarded to defendants under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b).

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed against multiple defendants; extensive RAO and RPO imposed requiring prior leave; costs awarded to defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim against 1st Defendant in HCA 2735 dismissed with costs assessed at HK$116,876.00 payable forthwith
  • Plaintiff's claim in HCA 328 dismissed and summons for leave to amend dismissed with costs assessed at HK$57,000.00 payable forthwith