9 Jun 2025
The writ was struck out because it is disorderly and fails to disclose reasonable causes of action, is malicious and vexatious and constitutes an abuse of court process; claims against the judge are barred by judicial immunity under Basic Law Article 85; accordingly the defendants’ strike‑out applications are granted and the writ removed.
9 Jun 2025
The court concluded that both HCMP 835/2023 and HCMP 836/2023 do not disclose any reasonable cause of action, contain serious unsubstantiated allegations amounting to malicious, frivolous and vexatious conduct and constitute an abuse of court process; accordingly both originating summonses (and related interlocutory summonses) are struck out, the plaintiff's recusal application is dismissed, indemnity-basis costs are ordered to be paid immediately to the defendants as a provisional order with a defined procedure for assessment, and a temporary civil restraint order for two years is imposed li…
9 Jun 2025
The writ was struck out in its entirety because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was malicious and an abuse of process, and the claims against the two judges were barred by judicial immunity under Basic Law Article 85; accordingly the strike-out application was granted and an immediate indemnity-based costs order was made subject to limited procedural safeguards.
26 Mar 2018
The appeal is dismissed and the claim is struck out because the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause, was plainly an abuse of process by re‑litigating matters already dismissed, the applicant produced no evidence to support allegations of fabrication or identity confusion, and the conduct justified an award of costs against the applicant and consideration of a civil restraint order.
16 Feb 2015
The Court struck out the appeal because the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, amounted to an abuse of process in light of prior related proceedings and lack of pleaded representative standing, rendering the appeal without real prospect of success; the Court further granted costs and imposed a civil restraint order restricting further related litigation without leave.
5 Dec 2012
The court granted an extension of time solely for the first plaintiff to appeal the civil restraint order because, despite the serious delay and lack of explanation, she demonstrated a reasonably arguable ground of appeal on whether the restriction order against her was justified; the court refused to extend time for appeals against the striking out orders because those strike-out decisions were plainly correct and lacked merit. The second plaintiff's application for extension was dismissed. The first plaintiff must serve and file a notice of appeal within seven days. Costs were awarded to de…