Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal data (privacy) ordinance s66

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

MISS YUEN OI YEE LISA v. BEST SPIRITS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2144
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5723/2016

The proposed joinder was refused and the action dismissed because the allegations against the proposed defendants did not relate to the contravention permitting a s66 PDPO claim, the claim was identical to previously struck out proceedings and therefore fell within the scope of the later RPO and amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly leave was refused and the proceeding dismissed.
7 Apr 2025

LEE SHI YAN ESTHER v. APPLE ASIA LTD (sued as APPLE INC, HONG KONG BRANCH)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1426
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1616/2024

The Set‑Aside Summons is dismissed because the court had no power to re‑open the appeal after the dismissal order was sealed; alternatively, even if power existed, the applicant’s delay was substantial and unexplained, her reasons were unreasonable and inconsistent, and the underlying appeal is hopeless because the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (including failure to plead a valid PDPO claim), therefore no extension of time to appeal is granted and the strike‑out is upheld.
28 Nov 2024

練碧儂對李秀瓊

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1975
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1409/2021

Court accepted defendant acted under authorization and in course of employment to determine urgency, found defendant not a data user for purposes of PDPO s66 and that there was no unauthorized use or disclosure; breach of confidence claim fails for lack of unauthorized use and absence of requisite elements; discrimination claim fails for lack of evidence linking any differential treatment to plaintiff's disability; credibility findings undermined plaintiff's case.
28 Jun 2023

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 797
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP82/2023

The Court dismissed the applicant's leave application because the intended claim was substantively identical to claims previously struck out and therefore fell within the scope of the existing Restrictive Proceedings Order; the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and the application to serve out of jurisdiction was procedurally premature absent leave to commence fresh proceedings under the RPO.
9 Jul 2021

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL418/2020

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's decision; the Director's conclusion that the PCPD's finding of a DPP5 contravention did not establish a sufficiently connected or arguable s66 claim by the applicant was rational and lawful; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
26 Jul 2019

LEE CHICK CHOI v. HE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2019] HKCA 820
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV276/2018

The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions raised did not, in the court's view, constitute matters of sufficient general or public importance to warrant referral and the application amounted to an abuse of process; costs were awarded to the Director to be taxed on an indemnity basis with directions for summary assessment.
31 Jul 2018

LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 449
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP79/2018

The renewed leave application is refused because the PDPO s66 claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to a frivolous, vexatious abuse of process and res judicata of prior dismissed proceedings; the plaintiff lacks locus standi for monetary claims because the trustee in bankruptcy withheld consent; an RPO is justified given repeated abusive litigation; indemnity costs of HK$21,602 are appropriate and were summarily assessed.
23 May 2018

LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD.

Citation

[2018] HKDC 587
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1988/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to show any arguable ground of appeal: the claim is an abuse and a re-run of earlier litigation and in substance a claim for loss of income requiring trustee consent; no novel point of law or binding authority was overlooked that would warrant the Court of Appeal's intervention.
24 Apr 2018

LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD.

Citation

[2018] HKDC 445
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1988/2017

The writ was struck out because it was an attempt to re-litigate claims already rejected by prior judgments and was objectively doomed to fail for want of any conceivable causal link under PDPO s66; additionally the plaintiff, being bankrupt, lacked locus without trustee consent; consequently the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to an abuse of process and justified dismissal with indemnity costs and the grant of an RPO to prevent further vexatious proceedings.
6 Mar 2018

LEE KWOK TUNG ALBERT v. CHIYU BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 123
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2017

Section 66(5) PDPO does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the District Court; although claims under s66(1) should ordinarily be commenced in the District Court, the Court of First Instance retains jurisdiction and a District Court may properly transfer a s66(1) action to the Court of First Instance in appropriate circumstances; the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to transfer in this case.