ELIZABETH LEE (AH FOON) v. KIT SEONG LAM NG (AH HING)

HCA 24/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 24 OF 2008

______________________

______________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.    Lisa Yuen who identified herself as Elizabeth Lee (Ah Foon) in this action filed a set of written submissions on 15 January 2008 to show cause as to why she should be permitted to pursue this action even though it was issued in breach of the RPO of 23 November 2007.

2.    She sought to justify her breach of the RPO by referring to the directions of this court on 13 June and 30 August 2006.  The directions were made against the background set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of my Reasons for Decision of 22 November 2007 in HCA 2281 of 2007.  As clearly stated in those paragraphs, if she commenced an action without RPO leave this court would adjudicate on the propriety of such a course of action.  If RPO leave is required and she had not applied for such leave, this court will take the appropriate action and she would have to suffer the consequences of her wrongful action.

3.    Moreover, the directions of 13 June and 30 August 2006 clearly required her to apply for RPO leave if she regarded her intended proceedings might be caught by the RPO.

4.    As explained in my Decision of 11 January 2008 in this action, Yuen was plainly aware that the present action was caught by the RPO of 23 November 2007 when she issued the writ on 4 January 2008.  This conclusion is reinforced by Yuen’s letter of 10 January 2008 to the Registrar, a copy of which was attached to her written submissions.

5.    Thus, the directions of 13 June and 30 August 2006 do not afford any excuse to her for disobeying the RPO.

6.    Yuen also said she was worried about Miranda Lam escaping from Hong Kong after selling her properties.  I am not impressed.  There is not a shred of evidence to substantiate that assertion.

7.    RPO has to be obeyed.  Given the history of the matters, including the recalcitrant vexation exhibited by Yuen, this court must take firm action against her.  She should not be allowed to get away with her repeated disobedience of the court’s orders.  To permit this action to continue is to condone her wrongdoing.  It would also give her the wrong message that the RPOs are of no effect against her.

8.    Further, Yuen has to learn that it is against her interest to commit breaches of RPOs made against her.

9.    For these reasons, I order that,

(a)

This action should not be permitted to continue and it is struck out and dismissed;

(b)

For reasons given in my Decision of 11 January 2008, given Yuen’s refusal to purge her contempt, this court will not entertain any applications for RPO and RAO leaves from her for a period of three months.  All applications for RPO and RAO leaves by her filed before 15 May 2008 (including all her RAO and RPO leave applications filed before today, which I have read and considered to be vexatious and without merits in the same nature as those applications refused in my Ruling of 14 December 2007 in HCA 2017 of 2006, see in particular paragraph 9 of that Ruling) shall stand dismissed