THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. XU RUIBIN also known as RUIBIN XU AND XU RUI BIN

HCMP 449/2023

[2025] HKCFI 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 449 OF 2023

_________________

_________________

_______________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_______________________________________

1.  This is the Secretary for Justice’s (“SJ”) application for a statutory order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 (“the Ordinance”) against the Respondent (“Mr Xu”) restraining him from instituting or continuing legal proceedings without leave of the Court.

2.  Mr Xu is absent at the hearing.  I am satisfied that personal service of the originating summons and other application papers had been effected on Mr Xu^[1]. 

3.  SJ’s ground of application is that Mr Xu’s has commenced 17 unfocused and incomprehensible actions in the High Court and  District Court during the period between 2014 and 2023 against a wide range of defendants including judicial officers, governmental bodies and foreign states etc.. 

4.  Section 27(1) and (2)(a) of the Ordinance provide that:

“27. Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings

(1)  The Court of First Instance may, on the application of the Secretary for Justice or an affected person, make an order that—

(a)  no legal proceedings shall without the leave of the Court of First Instance be instituted by the person against whom the order is made; and

(b)  any legal proceedings instituted by that person in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance. 

(2)  The Court of First Instance may not make an order under subsection (1) unless—

(a)  it is satisfied that the person against whom the order is to be made has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; 

…”

5.  Ms Jess Chan, counsel for SJ, submitted that Mr Xu’s conduct has met the statutory condition in section 27(2)(a) that this court should restrain him from instituting legal proceedings in order to curb Mr Xu’s abuse of court process including any potential application to revive or continue with any of the actions. 

6.  Ms Chan prepared a table in her written submission setting out the 15 actions commenced by Mr Xu during the 10 weeks between 27 October 2022 and 6 January 2023 against a wide range of defendants as below:

	Action Number	Parties sued by Mr Xu
1.	HCA 1487/2022	Republic of the Philippines
2.	HCA 1489/2022	Government of Malaysia (D1) and Consulate General of Malaysia (D2)
3.	HCA 1730/2022	Republic of Armenia
4.	HCA 1753/2022	Republic of Serbia (D1), President of Republic of Serbia (D2), Prime Minister of Republic of Serbia (D3) and Minister and Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia (D4)
5.	HCA 1755/2022	Georgia (D1), President of Georgia (D2) and Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia (D3)
6.	DCCJ 5073/2022	High Court of Hong Kong (D1) and Registrar S. Kwang (D2)
7.	DCCJ 5222/2022	High Court of Hong Kong (D1) and Master Man (D2)
8.	DCCJ 12/2023	Master Man
9.	HCA 1422/2022	Immigration Department, HKSAR (D1) and Chief Executive Office of HKSAR (D2)
10.	HCA 1780/2022	陳咏倫 (D1), 劉穎雯 (D2) and 李家俊 (D3)
11.	DCCJ 87/2023	Immigration Department, HKSAR (D1) and張鎮培 (D2)
12.	HCA 1440/2022	Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PRC
13.	HCA 1717/2022	中國人民銀行 (D1), 中國人民銀行長春中心支行 (D2), 吉林省長春市中級人民法院 (D3), 長春市朝陽區人民法院 (D4), 付喜國中國人民銀行瀋陽分行行長 (D5), 易網中國人民銀行行長 (D6), 郭樹清中國人民銀行黨委書記、副行長 (D7), 朱兆文中國人民銀行長春中心支行黨委書記、行長國家外匯管理局吉林省分局局長 (D8), 王景富中國人民銀行長春中心支行黨委委員、副行長 (D9), 張文匯吉林省人大常委會 (D10), 臧景範 (D11) and 宋金山 (D12)
14.	HCA 1532/2022	Hong Kong Country Club (D1), Hong Kong Veteran’s Tennis Association (D2), Peter N. Roberts (D3), D.C. Louis Shih (D4) and Frederick Wong (D5)
15.	HCA 1624/2022	Poompat Benjacharonenluk

7.  As submitted by Ms Chan, the claims in those 15 actions share a common feature that they are unintelligible or wholly frivolous or scandalous.  For instances:

(a)  In HCA 1730/2022, Mr Xu claimed a compensation of HK$2 billion against the named defendants for the alleged delay in processing his application for a resident card in the Republic of Armenia;

(b)  In HCA 1753/2022, Mr Xu claimed a compensation of hundreds of billion against the named defendants for his alleged detention in Serbia;

(c)  In HCA 1755/2022, Mr Xu claimed a compensation of more than $400 billion and an apology against the named defendants for the alleged failure of the police in Georgia to attend to his report of being assaulted by a motor bike driver. 

8.  The above instances of claims have been articulated and reworded by Ms Chan.  I have been shown the images of the original handwritten versions of the Indorsement of Claims filed by Mr Xu and the contents of which are very difficult to comprehend. 

9.  At the time of this hearing, of the 17 actions instituted by Mr Xu, 11 have been struck out, 4 have been dormant, and 2 have been adjourned sine die with liberty to restore while striking out applications have been taken out.  There remain four dormant court actions commenced against Mainland and foreign governmental bodies and individuals respectively. 

10.  Mr Xu lodged his appeals against 3 of the decisions striking out his actions but he did not appear in any of the appeal hearings and the appeals were dismissed. 

11.  Considering the above mentioned conduct of Mr Xu, it is more than apparent that Mr Xu has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the High Court and the District Court. 

12.  From reading the reasoned decisions of various judges and judicial officers^[2] who have dealt with Mr Xu’s cases, his claims therein are untenable in law or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless.  The fact that most of the actions have been struck out is good evidence of their vexatious nature. 

13.  The originating summons and the supporting affidavit both filed on 21 March 2023 were served on Mr Xu personally in Hong Kong on 23 March 2023.  There was no response from Mr Xu. 

14.  Mr Xu was notified of the hearing originally scheduled for 13 September 2023 by personal service of the notice of appointment to hear the originating summons effected on 11 May 2023, before Mr Xu’s departure from Hong Kong on 17 May 2023.  Any acts he intended to take in response to this application could have been taken before he had departed from Hong Kong.  Further, there is no evidence available suggesting that he cannot return to Hong Kong to personally attend to these proceedings.  I am satisfied that Mr Xu has been given sufficient opportunity to be heard but he has chosen not to respond to the present application against him. 

15.  In my judgment, an order under section 27 of the Ordinance is appropriate to restrain Mr Xu from instituting any legal proceedings in all levels of courts without the leave of the Court of First Instance and any and all legal proceedings instituted by Mr Xu in any court before the making of this order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance. 

16.  I give the orders in terms of the draft order submitted by SJ. 

17.  Costs of this application be to SJ.