FONG KUN SHENG RAYMOND v. FONG CHIU LUN

HCA484/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.484 OF 2005

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I have before me the defendant Fong Chiu Lun, also known as Fong Ki, also known as Fong Biu, who is the subject of the contempt proceedings brought by his son Raymond Fong Kun Sheng, the plaintiff herein, as a result of the alleged breach of the injunction order by the defendant on 23 March 2005.

2. By my judgement of 30 May, I held that the defendant was in civil contempt for having breached the order of 18 March and I ordered that the warrant of arrest be issued.  I also ordered that the question of the punishment of the defendant for contempt to be deferred and I would like to hear the evidence, both from the son as well as from the father, as to the circumstances of the alleged breach of the order, so that I could then consider the appropriate punishment. 

3. Although the order was made on 30 May 2005, the minute of the order was not passed to my clerk nor was a draft of the warrant given to my clerk.  So the formal order had not been drawn up nor was there any formal issue of the warrant of arrest.

4. The Hong Kong newspaper, however, very quickly picked up what happened on 30 May and the proceedings of 30 May was widely reported in the Hong Kong Chinese newspapers.  The defendant’s father who is close to 80 read the newspaper report and yesterday afternoon contacted my clerk and asked to see the court.  Arrangement therefore was made yesterday afternoon for the father and the son’s solicitors or barrister to appear before me today at one o’clock.  And this is what has happened.

5. At today’s hearing, three things happened :

(1)	The first thing is that the son’s lawyers had indicated to the court that the son did not wish to see the father actually in jail, he only wished the father to comply with the order of the court, that is to say not to harass him.
(2)	The second thing that had happened is that the father had agreed to give an undertaking to the court not to harass the son, not to go to the son’s office and not to contact the son.
(3)	The third thing that had happened is that the father had indicated to the court that he was not aware of the making of the order of 18 March, because he only received a bundle of documents in English but there was no Chinese translation of the order of 18 March.  This is his allegation.

6. The happy circumstances now is that as the father is willing to give the undertaking not to harass the son or to trouble the son, the son is happy on that basis to withdraw the contempt proceedings.  Having regard to the outstanding question whether the order was correctly made, because there is an outstanding question whether the father had actually received a Chinese translation of the order of 18 March, I am prepared, upon the basis of the undertaking and upon the consent of the son, to give leave for the son to withdraw the contempt application and consequently to rescind the order that I have made on 30 May, especially since that had not been formally drawn up.  I hope this would bring a happy end to a rather unfortunate domestic dilemma.

7. For the benefit of the future peace between the father and the son, let me pass on to the son a painful message from the father.  It can be termed what the French will call ‘cri de coeur’, that is ‘a cry from the heart’, that the father would very much like at his advance age to be able to see his two other sons in Hong Kong, his daughter in Hong Kong and possibly also his wife in Hong Kong.  He understands, of course, that the plaintiff son does not want to see him.  If it is at all possible, I hope that the plaintiff can persuade the other two brothers, the sister and the mother, perhaps to occasionally see the defendant, on such occasions as the birthday of the defendant or New Year or Christmas.  This hopefully may promote a happy conclusion to an unhappy domestic dispute.

8. I therefore order that upon the undertaking of the defendant to this court and to the plaintiff that the defendant, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise, from entering or remaining in the vicinity of the building where the plaintiff is working at Block A, 21 Tung Yuen Street, Yau Tong Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong and upon his second undertaking that the defendant, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise, howsoever from harassing the plaintiff or any of the staff of the company where the plaintiff is working at Block A, 21 Tung Yuen Street, Yau Tong Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong by telephone or otherwise, that upon those two undertakings being given to the court, I order that the plaintiff be at liberty to withdraw the contempt application made to the court and I also direct that my order made under my judgement on 30 May 2005 be hereby rescinded.