Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restricted applications order

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2023

LEUNG KIT HING, DORIS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1308
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP62/2021

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because it was brought well outside the 28-day period without good and sufficient reason for extension, it did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, the proposed appeal lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of process; service of the respondent's submissions was proper; extension of time was refused and costs were awarded to the Secretary for Justice on an indemnity basis in the sum of HKD 16,853.
23 Mar 2010

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2009

The Court exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment to enable the unrepresented Plaintiff to apply for an extension of time to vary the costs order nisi, on the condition that the Plaintiff pay into court for the account of the Defendant the sum of $4,000 within 14 days; the Court also decided to defer determination of the Plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal until the extension application is resolved.
14 Aug 2008

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2008

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the purported points of law were inseparable from disputed factual allegations and the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error; additionally, on the applicant's history of multiple unmeritorious proceedings the court made RAO and RPO pursuant to Practice Direction 11.3 to restrain vexatious litigation.
8 Aug 2007

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. PHOTOBITION HONG KONG LTD

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. PHOTOBITION HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2831/2006

The court struck out and dismissed three of the four related actions brought by the plaintiff as they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous and vexatious (claims were legally unsustainable or barred by litigation privilege); the claim against Robert Lam (HCA 2742/2006) was not struck out because, on the material, the plaintiff had arguable issues warranting a trial and limited leave to amend was granted; the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a RAO and RPO against the plaintiff to prevent further abuse of process and made costs orders nisi against the pla…
8 Aug 2007

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2107/2006

The Court struck out and dismissed HCA 2107/2006, HCA 2831/2006 and HCA 239/2007 as frivolous, vexatious or disclosing no reasonable cause of action (claims grounded on privileged litigation material or legally untenable allegations). The claim in HCA 2742/2006 against Robert Lam was not struck out; leave to amend was granted and the action allowed to proceed to trial on identified factual issues. The court found the plaintiff to be an abusive/vexatious litigant in conduct and made a Restricted Applications Order in HCA 2742/2006 and ordered that appropriate RPO/R A O measures be put in place…
29 Jun 2006

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS

Citation

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP71/2006

An RPO and an RAO were appropriate and justified: Mr Yu's repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already finally determined demonstrated vexatious abuse of process; the orders sought (with specified deletions) were made to prevent further abuse and to protect the administration of justice; costs were ordered nisi against Mr Yu for the RPO/RAO hearings.
29 Jun 2006

THE LIQUIDATORS OF C.A. PACIFIC SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YU MAN

Citation

THE LIQUIDATORS OF C.A. PACIFIC SECURITIES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YU MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW37/1998

Mr Yu repeatedly sought to relitigate matters finally decided by the High Court and Court of Appeal; the Court found his conduct amounted to vexatious abuse of process and that RPO and RAO are appropriate and lawful under Practice Direction 11.3 (and do not breach human rights or the Basic Law as confirmed by the CFA), therefore the court granted the restrictions sought (with specified modifications) and ordered costs nisi against Mr Yu.
9 Jan 2006

袁靄儀 v. 協峰電子有限公司

Citation

袁靄儀 v. 協峰電子有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA509/2004

Given the respondent's documented history of repetitive, abusive litigation and persistent disregard of court directions, it was necessary and proportionate to make a Restricted Proceedings Order and a Restricted Applications Order (RPO/RAO) limiting her ability to commence or pursue specified proceedings without leave; the RPO/RAO may extend to new subject matters related to prior conduct and to judicial review and tribunal proceedings where proportionate, but restrictions on appeals lie primarily with the Court of Appeal; the respondent's assorted interlocutory claims were dismissed as unme…