Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious litigant orders

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. HUSSAIN RAFAQAT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 200
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1626/2021

The court found the three statutory conditions of section 27 satisfied: the Director was an affected person, the defendant had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious, manifestly groundless non-refoulement proceedings and appeals (including repeated filings and immediate attempts to file subsequent claims after final disposal), and the defendant was heard; accordingly a section 27 order was granted restricting the defendant from instituting or continuing any non-refoulement proceedings without leave of the Court of First Instance, with specified procedural limits and duration, and co…
31 Jan 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SUMON MIAH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1476/2021

The statutory conditions of s27 were met: the Director was an affected person, the Defendant had habitually and persistently instituted manifestly groundless and repetitious non-refoulement proceedings (rejected at multiple levels, identical subsequent claim, defective Form 86) and had been heard; accordingly a prohibition order with leave requirements, limits and a 5-year duration was necessary to prevent continued abuse and delay; costs were awarded to deter repetition.
31 Jan 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. KHAN MOHAMMAD SHADAB

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1552/2021

The Defendant had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious and manifestly groundless non-refoulement proceedings and appeals—demonstrated by repeated procedural non-compliance, repeated unsuccessful identical grounds to higher courts, and late or irrelevant 'new' evidence—therefore the statutory conditions of section 27 were met; a prohibitory leave regime for future non-refoulement claims was justified and costs were awarded (HK$30,000).
21 Jul 2021

LEUNG KIT HING, DORIS v. ELECTORAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1050
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/2021

The court found on the authorities and the repeated litigation history that Doris Leung had persistently and incurably abused process by intermeddling in proceedings where she had no locus, filing incoherent and unmeritorious applications and re-litigating finally determined issues; it was proportionate and necessary to grant the RAO and RPO tailored to the identified proceedings and subject matters, to strike out and dismiss the impugned summonses and appeals as abuse of process, to refuse leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and to order costs to the Secretary for Justice to be ass…
28 Mar 2000

TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14/2000

The statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action because the plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue over alleged slanders and treasonable conduct directed at the Central Government, and the proceedings were repetitive of earlier dismissed litigation making them an abuse of process and vexatious; consequently the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed and a prohibitory order preventing further proceedings on the same claim without leave was granted in favour of the defendants.
18 Jan 2000

CHAN SAI LUN HENRY v. CHAN WAI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN SAI LUN HENRY v. CHAN WAI WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV143/1998

The debarring Order was set aside because it lacked jurisdictional and evidential foundation: the Mental Health Act 1983 no longer applied, the Mental Health Ordinance procedures required for declaring mental incapacity were not followed, Order 80 cannot be used independently of those procedures, and the statutory route for barring litigants (HCO s27) was not invoked; accordingly the debarment and the dependent striking-out Order were unlawful and must be set aside; stay applications were refused on their merits.

Hong Kong Case Law

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. HUSSAIN RAFAQAT

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SUMON MIAH

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. KHAN MOHAMMAD SHADAB

LEUNG KIT HING, DORIS v. ELECTORAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION

TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

CHAN SAI LUN HENRY v. CHAN WAI WAH AND ANOTHER