WONG YU KWONG v. THE HONG KONG SOCIERY FOR THE BLIND

------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

Hunter, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal against the dismissal, on 12th December 1988, by Nazareth J of an appeal sought to be brought by Mr Wong against an order made by Master McInnes as long ago as 24th November 1986. It is an appeal which is doomed to fail for a number of reasons.

2. This is (I hope) the last or the current chapter in a very unhappy story of what has become the case of a man who is obsessed with injustices the he perceives he has suffered. As long ago as 1980 the applicant ceased to be employed by the Hong Kong Society for the Blind. He took his claim to the Labour Tribunal and was awarded just under $2,000. This was a proper assessment of his position by the appropriate Tribunal. But this he was unable to accept. In 1981, 1982 and 1983 he commenced actions in the High Court raising claims in respect of the same subject matter. All were dismissed as vexatious. The first two claims were dismissed ultimately by the judge; and the third, first by the judge and later by this Court. Early in 1984 he made a similar claim in the District Court which suffered the same fate.

3. As a result of that proceedings were instituted against him by the Attorney General to have him declared a vexations litigant. An order was made in those proceedings on 12th July 1984. Unfortunately, as his submissions to this Court this morning have demonstrated, he has now become equally obsessed by the alleged invalidity of those proceedings. Sadly he has been unable to accept that the order was properly made by Rhind J.

4. The writ in the present action was issued on 10th August 1984, ignoring Rhind J's order. Unfortunately by an oversight in this building, its issue was permitted. In due course the applicant came to recognise that he had to get the court's leave to continue with the action. This was the application which came before Master McInnes on 24th November 1986. Master McInnes refused leave. It was at about this time that the applicant elicited the help of the Governor, and received the helpful advice that the only possible step open to him was to seek to appeal the order of Master McInnes out of time. That advice he followed, with the result that an appeal came before Rhind J on 24th February 1987. Rhind J of course was the judge who made the original order. One might have thought that Rhind J would have been the very first person to point out invalidities or defects or forgeries in that order if they existed. Of course he did no such thing. He dismissed the appeal. A further appeal was then brought to this Court on1st May 1987. On the hearing of that appeal a very full and careful judgment was given by Fuad JA. In the course of that judgment Fuad JA pointed out that the appeal was in effect hopeless.

5. That is where this matter ought to have ended. But in 1988 the applicant went back to the Governor. It is plain that in the material he put before the Governor he did not reveal the unsuccessful appeals to Rhind J and to this Court. Because when writing to him a kindly letter on 15th August 1988 Miss Wong for the Deputy Chief Secretary reminded him of the advice which had been given, back in February 1987. Mr Wong, in effect, sought to take that advice again. He issued a further Notice of Appeal on 7th October 1988 against the order of Master McInnes. That document should never have been accepted, but unfortunately it was. It is that appeal which came before Nazereth J on 12th December. He dismissed it on its merits. If he had known the full history he would never have entertained it at all. The whole of the subject matter of this appeal had already been concluded by the earlier decision of this Court.

6. Mr Wong all I can really say to you is this. You have been allowed two appeals where you should only have had one. Now please let this be the end of the road. There is nothing further you can do by way of complaint about the adequacy of the Labour Tribunal award way back in November 1980. There is nothing further you can do about the order of Rhind J of 12th July 1984, declaring you a vexatious litigant, except to honour it. Please do not try to issue any further applications in these matters.

Power, JA:

7. I agree.

Sears, J :

8. I will only respectfully add one matter. After the hearing on 1st May 1987 in this Court an amendment was made to section 27 of the Supreme Court Ordinance requiring the publication in the Gazette of the fact that a person had been held a vexations litigant. This appeal arises as a result of another procedural irregularity. In my judgment consideration should now be given to the restriction which has been placed in England on vexatious litigants, as to their rights of appeal, being similarly imposed in Hong Kong.