Case Details

Citation

XCHRX WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO. AND ANOTHER v. Department of Justice AND OTHERS, HCA 6709/1997

Case Number

HCA 6709/1997

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

22 September 1997

Parties

Applicant(s):

WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO., LEUNG SING PING, HO YUK SHEUNG

Respondent(s):

Department of Justice, The Commissioner of Customs & Excise, Hong Kong Police Force

For Applicant(s):

Mr. Leung Sing-ping

For Respondent(s):

Mr. Raymond Tam G.C.

XCHRX WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO. AND ANOTHER v. Department of Justice AND OTHERS

HCA 6709/1997

Court of First Instance22 September 1997

HCA006709/1997 XCHRX WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO. AND ANOTHER v. Department of Justice AND OTHERS

HCA006709/1997

1997, No. A6709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

_________________

BETWEEN
	WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO.	Plaintiffs

	LEUNG SING PING AND HO YUK SHEUNG

	and

	1) Department of Justice	Defendants

	2) The Commissioner of
	Customs & Excise

	3) Hong Kong Police Force

___________________

Coram: Deputy Judge Wesley Wong in Chambers

Date of hearing: 22 September 1997

Date of handing down of judgment: 3 October 1997

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an appeal against the decision of Master Chu in which the learned Master struck out the Statement of Claim and dismissed the action of the Plaintiff .

2. The facts are as follows:-

1) On the 24th June 1997 the Plaintiff filed the writ against the Hong Kong Government, the Attorney General's Chambers, the Commissioner of Customs & Excise and the Royal Hong Kong Police.

2) Indorsed in the writ was a bare claim for $30,700,000.

3) On 16th July 1997 the Defendants took out a summons to strike out the claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

BACKGROUND

3. From the over 300 pages of documents lodged by the Plaintiff many of which are repetitive it seems that the Plaintiff was aggrieved in that

1) Many years ago the Plaintiffs (Leung Sai Ping & Ho Yuk Sheung) operated Wai Hung Stationery Co.

2) There was an unlicensed food factory with triad protection. After the crack down of that food factory Mr. Leung said he was suspected to have laid information and thereafter trouble started and a lot of cases were directed at him and he could not continue his business.

3) There was a suspension of electric supply to his shop for 147 days and it was an abuse of power by the China Light and Power Co., Ltd.

4) The legal Aid Department conspired with others and refused him Legal Aid and even obtained an injunction against him.

5) Someone forged his shop's chop.

6) There was a copyright action against him.

7) The Customs & Excise Department had seized a copier from his shop some 10 years ago and did not return the copies to him.

8) People had incited his 3 sons to become big spenders and ruined their future and

9) On the 27th December 1996 he had been wronlgy accused of obstruction of police in the execution of their duty.

4. The grounds of appeal are that the proceedings before Master Chu was conducted in English and Mr. Leung did not understand what was said as the interpreter had not interpreted 100% of what was said and that the Master had not given assistance to him.

5. Having read all the 300 odd pages of his bundles, in order to let the Plaintiff understand the law and procedure I explained in Punti dialect the law and procedure to him and asked whether he had anything else to submit to me apart from the documents and what he told Master Chu. I told him the claim must be based on facts and identify the cause of action which was absent in the indorsement. I told him I have read all the documents and if from the documents there is a cause of action I would allow him to amend and proceed.

6. He insisted there is and repeated again his allegations in the letters of complaint to various Government Departments.

7. I cannot see there is any cause of action from the documents he produced. The only possible cause of action, if any, is for the return of the copier but then it happened so long ago that it is statute barred.

8. For reasons above the appeal is dismissed with costs.

	(Wesley Wong)
	Deputy Judge of the Court of
	First Instance

XCHRX WAI HUNG STATIONERY CO. AND ANOTHER v. Department of Justice AND OTHERS

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition