Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restrictive proceedings order (rpo)

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2024

ATUKUNDA GRACE FLAVIA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1709/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on the intended judicial review because the immigration officer lawfully and properly assessed the additional materials, correctly took into account prior adverse credibility findings, properly evaluated and discounted the late medical evidence as lacking probative value, found internal relocation and state protection viable, concluded the second application was an abuse of the screening system and thus refused leave and extension of time; accordingly leave to file Form 86 and extension were refused under the RPO.
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.
11 May 2023

鄺偉明對基督教九龍五旬節會有限公司及另五人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 613
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2022

The court struck out and dismissed the claimant's proceedings: the claims were time‑barred under s82(1) DDO and the claimant failed to establish any compelling reason to exercise the s82(3) discretion; independently, the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because essential factual particulars were missing, and the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; the Official Receiver issue did not prevent the claim being struck out because the causes of action were personal in nature; RPO was refused as unnecessary; costs were awarded to respondents and the inte…
23 Aug 2021

梁偉儒對王偉良

Citation

[2021] HKDC 996
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5170/2020

The statement of claim failed to plead the factual basis of the alleged trust/nominee relationship and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action; the claim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process in light of prior final determinations on the same subject matter; accordingly the claim was struck out, the action dismissed and an RPO was properly granted as a proportionate means to prevent further abusive relitigation.
17 Dec 2018

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK PANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 980
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP161/2018

The Court refused leave because the intended appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success under s14AA High Court Ordinance Cap 4, there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it, the alleged new events did not establish grounds for an RPO and the application amounted to an abuse of process and was plainly unarguable.
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.
21 Sept 2016

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1914/2015

Leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed because the intended proceedings were a re-litigation of matters already dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; under ss63/63A of the District Court Ordinance the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
16 Nov 2015

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. CHAROEN SIRIVADHANABHAKDI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1914/2015

The plaintiff's statement of claim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process because it sought effectively to re-litigate issues already finally decided in earlier proceedings concerning Mr Lee; the court granted a restrictive proceedings order preventing further abusive litigation without leave, allowed only a narrowly defined claim against the 8th defendant for injury to feelings under s66 PDPO to be pursued with leave, and made a costs order nisi on an indemnity basis against the plaintiff.
7 Jul 2008

LSW v. LMYM

Citation

LSW v. LMYM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1041/2008

Leave to appeal was dismissed because section 14(3)(d) of the High Court Ordinance and the circumstances (applicant had time and opportunity to appeal the decree nisi and had unsuccessfully appealed) render the present application misconceived and an abuse of process; applicant's grounds were unarguable and previously rejected; the court will consider exercising its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the pending related appeal and to impose RPO/RAO against the applicant.