29 Sept 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the claim against Government Counsel disclosed no duty of care owed by a litigant and was, in any event, barred by section 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance, rendering the application totally without merit.
11 Jun 2009
The Court held the plaintiff's claim against Ms Soong disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was incurably bad and in any event legally barred by s.4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance so that any failure to file evidence could not have changed the outcome; therefore leave to appeal out of time was refused, the striking out and dismissal were upheld and the Registrar's costs assessments (HK$15,000 and HK$4,000) were reasonable and the appeal against the costs order dismissed; the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of the appeal of HK$7,500.
23 Dec 2008
Even if the plaintiff's factual allegations are proven, there is no legal duty of care owed by the defendant litigant in the conduct of litigation and the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action; consequently the claim is plain and obvious and must be struck out under Order 18, rule 19(1)(a), with costs awarded to the defendant.
24 Dec 2007
The claims were struck out because, as a matter of law, litigants and their legal representatives owe no duty to adversaries regarding the conduct of litigation and government counsel owe no higher duty; the defendant’s procedural acts (acknowledgement of service, strike out proceedings, and seeking taxation under O 62 rr 10 and 21(4)) were lawful and authorised by the Rules; accordingly the plaintiff’s causes of action disclosed no reasonable prospect of success and were frivolous or vexatious.
24 Dec 2007
The court applied the settled principle that a litigant and his legal representative owe no duty to correct an opponent's mistaken litigation decisions, held that government counsel acting for a party does not owe any special higher duty to an opposing lay litigant, and found the procedural steps taken were proper under the Rules; therefore each claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious and must be struck out.
24 Dec 2007
The claims were struck out because, on assumed facts, no duty of care existed between the defendants and the plaintiff to correct or prevent the plaintiff's litigation choices, government counsel owed no higher duty to a lay opponent than private counsel, the defendants' procedural steps were lawful under the Rules (including O 62 rr 10 and 21(4)), and therefore the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious.