Case Details

Citation

YUEN OI YEE LISA AND ANOTHER v. ALEXANDER KC LEE, HCA 2735A/2006

Case Number

HCA 2735A/2006

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

17 August 2007

Parties

Applicant(s):

YUEN OI YEE LISA

Respondent(s):

ALEXANDER K.C. LEE, LO CHAN & LEUNG (Dismissed)

Judges

YUEN OI YEE LISA AND ANOTHER v. ALEXANDER KC LEE

HCA 2735A/2006

Court of First Instance17 August 2007

Judges:Lam

HCA002735A/2006 YUEN OI YEE LISA AND ANOTHER v. ALEXANDER KC LEE

HCA 2735/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2735 OF 2006

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	ALEXANDER K.C. LEE	1^st Defendant
	LO CHAN & LEUNG (Dismissed)	2^nd Defendant

______________________

HCA 328/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 328 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	LI KAM CHUEN	Defendant

______________________

HCA 789/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 789 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.	1^st Defendant
	LAU CHAN KO & CO. (Discontinued)	2^nd Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO. (Discontinued)	3^rd Defendant
	TAI, TANG & CHONG (Dismissed)	4^th Defendant

______________________

AND

HCA 1242/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1242 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.	1^st Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM	2^nd Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO.	3^rd Defendant
	ALEXANDER LEE	4^th Defendant
	LI & PARTNERS	5^th Defendant
	FLOURISH PROPERTY AGENCY LTD.	6^th Defendant
	SAMMI WAI YEE CHOW	7^th Defendant
	STEVEN WAI KEUNG POON	8^th Defendant

______________________

(Heard together)

Before : Hon Lam J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 17 August 2007

Date of Decision : 17 August 2007

Date of Reasons for Decision : 22 August 2007

_________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________________

1. This is yet a further application before me for a Restricted Application and Restricted Proceedings Order [“RAO and RPO”] against Yuen Oi Yee, Lisa [“Yuen”]. I have made similar orders against her in the context of other actions, see Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee [2006] 1 HKLRD 679; Yuen Oi Yee v Lam Kit Seong HCA 2107 of 2006, 8 August 2007.

2. On the first occasion when I made a RAO and RPO against Yuen, it was in respect of what I called the Heath saga. Yuen commenced numerous unmeritorious actions against various persons including her former colleagues, superiors and employer, Heath Company Limited.

3. On the second occasion, Yuen commenced numerous unmeritorious actions against those associated with her earlier employer, Mr Robert Lam. Most but not all her actions were dismissed. She was allowed to proceed with her claim against Mr Lam in HCA 2742 of 2006 subject to RAO leave being obtained for her applications.

4. On this occasion, Yuen sued various persons on account of her involvement in a dispute between two brothers, Lee Shun Chung and Li Kam Chuen. She claimed to be a friend of Lee Shun Chung and she had assisted him in his litigation with Li Kam Chuen. She alleged to have provided some services in the course of that dispute by way of inspecting the accounts of a company in which the two brothers were shareholders. She also alleged she had provided translation services. To claim remuneration for such alleged services, she issued debit notes to various entities. She also claimed that she had been defamed by various persons, including a lawyer acting for Li Kam Chuen, in the course of the dispute.

5. It should be noted that Yuen was not a party in the dispute between Lee Shun Chung and Li Kam Chuen and she had no business to get involved in the same. Lee Shun Chung was originally represented by a firm of solicitors called Messrs. C.Y. Chan & Co. The materials before me showed that by early December 2005 (if not before), Yuen became involved in the matter. On 7 December 2005, Yuen wrote letters to the solicitors acting for Li Kam Chuen and had telephone conversation with the solicitor who had the conduct of the case for Li Kam Chuen. In the first paragraph of a letter dated 7 December 2005 to the solicitors firm acting for Li Kam Chuen, Yuen introduced herself as follows,

“ I am a best friend of Mr and Mrs Lee Shun Chung acting for Lee Shun Chung in future legal proceedings on complimentary basis while Mr Lee Shun Chung will be a litigant in person against your rich client …” (my emphasis)

6. Yuen then proceeded to set out some matters concerning the dispute between the brothers in the same letter. She further stated the Mr Lee Shun Chung had decided not to appeal against the judgment in HCCW 572 of 2005 and she put forward a proposal for settlement in paragraph 7 of the letter. Upon receipt of the letter, the solicitor acting for Li Kam Chuen tried to verify the identity of Yuen. He was told that Yuen was not a qualified lawyer. At that stage, there was still a solicitor acting for Lee Shun Chung on the record.

7. For some reasons, Yuen regarded the call from the solicitor as a threat. She wrote two further letters to the solicitor on 7 December 2005 complaining about the “threat”.

8. On 8 December 2005, the solicitors firm who had been acting for Lee Shun Chung went off the record with the filing of a Notice to Act in Person signed by Lee Shun Chung.

9. The solicitor acting for Li Kam Chuen responded to Yuen fully in a letter of 9 December 2005. Since then, Yuen continued to conduct correspondence with the solicitor concerning the dispute between the two brothers.

10. Despite her intimation to act for Lee Shun Chung on a complimentary basis, Yuen issued at least the following debit notes in connection with her services provided in the context of the dispute between the brothers,

(a) A debit note No. ALEE/LCL/108/2006 dated 24 March 2006 in the sum of $30,000 as “translation fee for summons including “Affirmation of Li Kam Chuen” and contents there in dated 10 March 2006 to Mr Lee Shun Chung”;

(b) Three similar debit notes for translation fees, viz. No. ALEE/LCL/1082/2006 for $60,000; ALEE/LCL/1089/2006 for $3,000; ALEE/LCL/1077/2006 for $6,000;

(c) A debit note No. ALEE/LCL/110/2006 dated 27 March 2006 in the sum of $50,000 for “professional service rendered to visit Mr Leung of T & T Secretarial Company Limited on 9 February 2006 (upon the instruction given by Mr Alexander Lee during a meeting with the 3 women on 8 February 2006) and 16 March 2006 to expedite for the audited accounts to Bettabob Investment Company Limited”;

(d) A debit note No. ALEE/LCL/128/2006 dated 12 April 2006 in the sum of $10,000 for “professional service rendered to re-submit the revised appeal bundle and index according to the comments made by Messrs. Lo Chan & Leung on 5 February 2006”;

(e) A debit note No. BETTABOB/ 0704171 dated 17 April 2007 in the sum of $100,000 for “professional service rendered to Mr Lee Shun Chung for the period from 5 December 2005 to 26 March 2007 in respect of all work and services carried out for him and to Bettabob Investment Company Limited for his legal actions of HCCW 572 of 2005, CACV 11 of 2006 and HCA 2574 of 2006 against Mr Li Kam Chuen while both Mr Lee Shun Chung and Mr Li Kam Chuen are “Shareholders” and “Directors” of Bettabob Investment Company Limited”.

11. There are good reasons why the law prescribes that only qualified person can practise law. An unqualified person is not subject to the professional and disciplinary regime that qualified lawyers are. All lawyers owed duties to the court and if such duties are breached, they are subject to the appropriate sanction. But very often, an unqualified person is not aware of such duties and does not have adequate appreciation of the proper role of an advocate in our legal system. In the context of litigation, a piece of wrong advice from an unqualified person could lead to serious consequences not only for the person who takes the advice but also those on the other side. Since an unqualified person would not have any professional indemnity coverage, those suffer as a result of his or her bad advice may not have adequate and effective redress. Moreover, an unqualified person may sometimes have difficulties in having an adequate understanding of the issues raised in a piece of litigation. To put the conduct of one’s litigation in the hands of an unqualified person is unwise and risky. This is particularly so when such unqualified person has a track record of being found by the court to be vexatious. More likely than not, allowing such person to intermeddle with someone else’s litigation would disrupt the proper and efficient administration of justice and escalate the costs of litigation. Unjustifiable wastage of judicial resource will likely be occasioned.

12. I was told that in respect of the Lee/Li brothers saga Yuen commenced four High Court Actions (HCA 2735 of 2006; HCA 328 of 2007; HCA 789 of 2007 and HCA 1242 of 2007), one District Court Action (DCCJ 600 of 2007) and two Small Claims Tribunal Cases (SCTC 24595 of 2007 and SCTC 22798 of 2007). The defendants in these legal proceedings included the two brothers, their company, lawyers who have acted for the two brothers and the company respectively, the estate agents who were involved in the sale of a property of the company.

13. All the claims in the High Court Actions have been dismissed except Yuen’s claims against the three estate agency defendants in HCA 1242 of 2007. These three defendants have not filed any acknowledgement of service and I have no affirmation evidence as regards whether they had been validly served with the writ and the Statement of Claim. Yuen claimed she had done so. But it was not a matter before me at the striking out hearing on 15 August 2007.

14. At the striking out hearing on 15 August 2007, I dismissed Yuen’s claims against all the defendants who have appeared (either in person or by lawyers). I have given oral reasons for my decisions and I am not going to repeat the same. It is plain and obvious to me that Yuen’s actions against these defendants as set out in her statement of claims were doomed to fail. Some of the actions were duplication of earlier proceedings and as such clear abuses of the legal process, e.g. her claim against the company in HCA 789 of 2007 was repeated in HCA 1242 of 2007. There were also other instances of duplications between her claim in the District Court and her proposed claim against Alexander Lee in the High Court Action, and her claim against Mr Joseph Yam, another lawyer, in the High Court Action and the Small Claims Tribunal.

15. Yuen also recognized the hopeless nature of her claims. At the hearing on 15 August 2007, she conceded at the hearing (but not before) that her existing statement of claim in HCA 1242 of 2007 and HCA 328 of 2007 were bad. She also asked for discontinuance of HCA 2735 of 2006. At the same time, she sought leave to amend to put in new causes of action. But her new claims were either duplication of claims that have been advanced in other existing actions or hopeless claims.

16. The vexatious nature of Yuen’s claim is also highlighted by the fact that one of the defendants in HCA 1242 of 2007, Li & Partners, a solicitors firm, has neither acted for the brothers nor the company. Yuen sued this firm only because Alexander Lee is employed by this firm after his employment with the firm who acted for the brother had been terminated. Notwithstanding the obvious lack of merit in her case, Yuen maintained she wished to proceed against Li & Partners at the beginning of the hearing on 15 August 2007.

17. As pointed out by Ms Phua, Yuen is an educated and intelligent person who knew all along what she was doing. She regarded litigation as some kind of games. It appears to her to be an advantage to play such a game in a tiresome and oppressive manner as she could act in person whilst her adversaries would have to bear heavy burden in terms of costs and time engaged in the legal proceedings. She repeatedly brought actions against the advisors of her adversaries based on some spurious claims like defamations, self-serving debit notes issued by herself and injury of feelings. From the correspondence, it is quite plain that Yuen adopted a tactic of causing maximum damages to her opponents in terms of costs which they would have great difficulties in recovering from her irrespective of costs orders in their favour. She threatened to take matters on appeal all the way to the Court of Final Appeal to occasion great exposure of her opponents to unrecoverable costs. In so doing, she tried to pass on a message to her opponents that it would be easier for them to advise their clients to settle with her instead of “playing games” with her.

18. Instead of learning from her mistakes which this court have tried to explain to her for her benefit in Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, her conducts in these proceedings have demonstrated that she intends to continue with her abuses of the legal process and the existing form of RAO and RPO is inadequate for the protection of other litigants and the prevention of wastage of judicial resources.

19. I agree with the submissions of Ms Phua and the other defendants that Yuen had repeatedly pursued hopeless and scandalous claims in an oppressive manner. Her vindictiveness has caused her to start one groundless action after another as a form of revenge. This is borne out by her correspondence with Alexander Lee. Her only objective was to ruin him. The court should not allow its process to be used as an instrument for such senseless vendetta. The defendants and other potential defendants must be protected against such abuses by Yuen.

20. In the circumstances, it is legitimate and proportionate to impose a further RAO and RPO against Yuen. Further, in my view, time has come for a more extensive type of RAO and RPO to be imposed because Yuen’s litigation history since the making of the first RAO and RPO has proved that such order could not curb her impulsive inclination to cause damages to others by her vexatious activities.

21. Having considered the modus operandi of Yuen, the following types of actions are typical of her unmeritorious claims,

(a) defamation;

(b) self-serving debit notes issued by her on others;

(c) breach of oral agreement;

(d) injury to feelings.

22. Further, she has also attempted to rely on causes of action based on the following to generate unmeritorious satellite litigations,

(a) vicarious liability;

(b) professional negligence of lawyers.

23. It is proportionate and necessary to have a more stringent RPO and RAO in place. I therefore made a RAO and RPO not only encompassing existing subject matters and defendants in the Lee/Li brothers saga but also covering all new intended actions by Yuen in the High Court, District Court and Small Claims Tribunal based on the types of actions set out above irrespective of the identities of the putative defendants and the subject matters concerned. I am aware that such order is one step closer to a Section 27 order than the RPO and RAO that the court has made previously. However, on the facts and circumstances pertaining to Yuen’s actions, I regret to say that firm measure from the court is called for and the order I made has fairly taken into account of the legitimate interest of Yuen in the exercise of her right of access to the court.

24. I annex to this Reason a copy of the RPO and RAO that I made on 17 August 2007.

(M H Lam)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, in person, present

Miss Audrey Phua, of Messrs P C Woo & Co., for the 1^st Defendant in HCA 2735/2006 and the 4^th Defendant in HCA 1242/2007

Mr Yam Kee Cheong, of Messrs Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co., for the 2^nd & 3^rd Defendants (in person) in HCA 1242/2007

Mr Dan Chung, instructed by Messrs Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co., for the Defendant in HCA 328/2007

Mr Daniel Tang, instructed by Messrs Joseph, Tang & Co., for the 1^st Defendant in HCA 789/2007 and the 1^st Defendant in HCA 1242/2007

Mr Chong Moon Hing, of Messrs Li & Partners, for the 5^th Defendant (in person) in HCA 1242/2007, 6^th, 7^th & 8^th Defendants – absent

HCA 2735/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.2735 OF 2006

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	ALEXANDER K.C. LEE	1st Defendant
	LO CHAN & LEUNG(dismissed)	2nd Defendant

______________________

HCA 328/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.328 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	LI KAM CHUEN	Defendant

______________________

HCA 789/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.789 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.	1st Defendant
	LAU CHAN KO & CO. (discontinued)	2nd Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO. (discontinued)	3rd Defendant
	TAI, TANG & CHONG (dismissed)	4th Defendant

______________________

HCA1242/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.1242 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

	YUEN OI YEE LISA	Plaintiff
	and
	BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD.	1st Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM	2nd Defendant
	JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO.	3^rd Defendant
	ALEXANDER LEE	4^th Defendant
	LI & PARTNERS	5^th Defendant
	FLOURISH PROPERTY AGENCY LTD.	6^th Defendant
	SAMMI WAI YEE CHOW	7^th Defendant
	STEVEN WAI KEUNG POON	8^th Defendant

______________________

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LAM IN CHAMBERS

O R D E R

UPON the application of the Defendants in HCA 2735 of 2006 by way of Summons to strike out the Statement of Claim and the action filed on 22^nd January 2007

AND UPON the application of the Plaintiff in HCA 2735 of 2006 by way of Summons to amend the Statement of Claim filed on 4^th May 2007

AND UPON the application of the Plaintiff in HCA 2735 of 2006 by way of Summons to discontinue the action filed on 7^th August 2007

AND UPON the application of the Defendant in HCA 328 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the action filed on 14^th June 2007

AND UPON the application of the Plaintiff in HCA 328 of 2007 by way of Summons to amend the Statement of Claim filed on 4^th June 2007 and 25^th July 2007

AND UPON the application of the 1^st Defendant in HCA 789 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the action filed on 4^th July 2007

AND UPON the application of the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the Statement of Claim and the action filed on 3^rd July 2007

AND UPON the application of the 1^st Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the Statement of Claim and the action filed on 4^th July 2007

AND UPON the application of the 4^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the Statement of Claim and the action filed on 19^th July 2007

AND UPON the application of the 5^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons to strike out the Statement of Claim and the action filed on 21^st July 2007

AND UPON the application of the Plaintiff in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons to amend the Statement of Claim filed on 13^th August 2007

AND UPON the further application of all the Defendants in HCA 2735 of 2006, HCA 328 of 2007 and HCA 789 of 2007 and the 1^st to 5^th Defendants in HCA 1242 of 2007 by way of Summons filed on 16^th August 2007

AND UPON READING the 1st, 2^nd and 3^rd Affirmations of Lee King Chung Alexander filed on 22^nd January 2007, 21^st February 2007 and 3^rd July 2007, the Affirmations of Yuen Oi Yee Lisa filed on the 7^th February 2007, 17^th May 2007 and 7^th August 2007 and the 2^nd Affidavit of Audrey Soong Phua filed on 10^th August 2007 all under HCA 2735 of 2007 together with exhibits thereto

AND UPON READING the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Affirmations of Li Kam Chuen filed on 1^st March 2007, 14^th June 2007 and 5^th July 2007 and the Affirmations of Yuen Oi Yee Lisa filed on 4^th June 2007, 28^th June 2007 and 13^th August 2007 all under HCA 328 of 2007 together with exhibits thereto

AND UPON READING the Affirmation of Li Kam Chuen filed on 4^th July 2007 under HCA 789 of 2007 together with exhibits thereto

AND UPON READING the Affirmation of Yam Kee Cheong filed on 3^rd July 2007, the Affirmation of Li Kam Chuen filed on 4^th July 2007, the Affirmation of Lee King Chung Alexander filed on 19^th July 2007 and the Affirmation of Kwan Man Fai filed on 21^st July 2007 all under HCA 1242 of 2007 together with exhibits thereto

AND UPON HEARING the Plaintiff appearing in person and the Solicitors for the 1^st Defendant in HCA 2735 of 2006

AND UPON HEARING the Plaintiff appearing in person and Counsel for the Defendant in HCA 328 of 2007

AND UPON HEARING the Plaintiff appearing in person and Counsel for the 1^st Defendant in HCA 789 of 2007

AND UPON HEARING the Plaintiff appearing in person, Counsel for the 1^st Defendant, the 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th Defendants in person and the Solicitors for the 4^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007

IT IS ORDERED that: -

1.	The Plaintiff’s claim against the 1^st Defendant in HCA 2735 of 2006 be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the 1^st Defendant forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$116,876.00;
2.	The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in HCA 328 of 2007 be dismissed and the Plaintiff’s Summons for leave to amend the Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$57,000.00;
3.	The Plaintiff’s claims against the 1^st Defendant in HCA 789 of 2007 and HCA 1242 of 2007 be dismissed and the Plaintiff’s Summons for leave to amend the Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the 1^st Defendant forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$83,125.00;
4.	The Plaintiff’s claims against the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants in HCA 1242 of 2007 be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$7,000.00;
5.	The Plaintiff’s claims against the 4^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007 be dismissed and the Plaintiff’s Summons for leave to amend the Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the 4^th Defendant forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$75,620.00;
6.	The Plaintiff’s claims against the 5^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007 be dismissed and the Plaintiff’s Summons for leave to amend the Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs payable by the Plaintiff to the 5^th Defendant forthwith, such costs are assessed pursuant to Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) at HK$8,000.00;
AND UPON THE UNDERTAKING of the Plaintiff to the Court that she will discontinue her action against Cheung Chi Wai and Johnnie Yam in SCTC 024595 of 2007
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: -
Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”)
7.	That with immediate effect, Yuen Oi Yee Lisa (袁靄儀) (“the Plaintiff”) herein is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, in the High Court or District Court or the Small Claims Tribunal concerning any matters involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to or arising out of the proceedings set out in Part A of Schedule 1 (“the Relevant Proceedings”) and the subject matters set out in Part B of Schedule 1 and all actions against any persons based on a cause of action of a nature set out in Part C of Schedule 1 without the leave of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lam (“the designated Judge”) or in his absence, another designated judge appointed by the Chief Judge of the High Court, being first obtained (“RPO”);
8.	That all applications for leave to issue fresh proceedings covered or which may be covered by the RPO (“RPO Leave applications”) must be made in writing to the designated Judge (and not to any other Judge or to a Master) enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced.
9.	That at least 7 days before filing an RPO leave application, the Plaintiff shall notify in writing each intended defendant of her intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the aforesaid draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if a response is received by the applicant, that she shall file a copy thereof with her RPO leave application; and that, in any event, each intended defendant should be entitled, but shall be under no obligation, to place before the Court any desired representations regarding any such intended proceedings of which he/she/it has notice;
10.	That in the event that the designated judge is not available to hear the RPO leave application, the same shall be dealt with by another judge designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court;
11.	That all RPO leave applications and all matters ancillary thereto shall be dealt with on the papers and without any oral hearing unless the designated Judge otherwise directs;
12.	That if, contrary to the RPO, the Plaintiff seeks to issue fresh proceedings covered or which may be covered by the RPO without prior leave of the designated judge, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registry of the High Court, District Court, Small Claims Tribunal or to the notice of any master, judge or judicial officer, the Registry, master or judge or judicial officer in question shall forthwith refer those proceedings to the designated judge for a decision as to whether the proceedings should be permitted to continue or be dismissed;
13.	That if, contrary to the RPO, the Plaintiff purports to serve on one or more Defendants any fresh proceedings (whether or not the purported fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the designated Judge or some other judge, master or judicial officer) without the same time serving on the Defendant(s) a copy of a sealed order giving leave to proceed or a direction that leave is not required, such Defendant(s) should be entitled to make no response pending notification of the Court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and, insofar as necessary, time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such fresh proceedings shall be deemed extended accordingly.
14.	That notice of each decision by the designated Judge made pursuant to this Order be given in writing to the Plaintiff and to each intended Defendant named in the fresh proceedings;
Restricted Application Order (“RAO”)
15.	That with immediate effect, the Plaintiff is prohibited from making any further application to the Court or tribunal in the proceedings set out in Schedule 2, whether before or after judgment, without the leave of the designated Judge, being first obtained (“RAO”);
16.	That all applications for leave to issue an application in Schedule 2 (“RAO leave applications”) must be made in writing to the designated Judge (and not to any other Judge or to a Master) without giving notice of the application to the relevant Defendant(s);
17.	That in the event that the designated Judge is not available to hear the RAO leave application, the same shall be dealt with by another judge designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court;
18.	That all RAO leave applications and all matters ancillary thereto shall be dealt with on the papers and without any oral hearing unless the designated Judge otherwise directs;
19.	Where leave to make the substantive application is granted, service of the order giving leave must accompany service of the substantive application in question, which should be heard by a Judge and not a Master unless the Judge otherwise directs;
20.	That if, contrary to the RAO, the Plaintiff seeks to issue or pursue an application in the proceedings set out in Schedule 2 without prior leave of the designated judge, the purported application shall forthwith be referred by the Registry to a Master for such application to be dismissed in accordance with the RAO;
21.	That if, contrary to the RAO, the Plaintiff purports to serve any application in the proceedings set out in Schedule 2 on any relevant Defendant(s) without at the same time serving on that Defendant(s) a copy of a sealed order giving leave to issue or pursue such application, such application should automatically stand dismissed, so that neither that Defendant(s) nor the Court would be required to take any steps in response;
22.	That the proceedings and applications referred to in the RPO and the RAO includes proceedings and applications of whatever nature in the Court of First Instance, the District Court and the Small Claims Tribunal;
23.	That the RAO shall not prohibit the Plaintiff from responding to applications taken out by the other parties in the proceedings set out in Schedule 2.
24.	That the RAO and RPO shall not prohibit the Plaintiff from exercising her right of appeal to the Court of Appeal;
25.	That notification of this Order shall be given to the respective Registrars of the High Court, District Court, Small Claims Tribunal, who shall take note of the terms hereof and shall take all necessary steps to ensure due compliance with this Order; and
26.	The Plaintiff shall pay the costs of today’s hearing for RPO and RAO to the Defendants in HCA 328 of 2007 and to the 1^st to 5^th Defendants of HCA 1242 of 2007 forthwith, and such costs are fixed pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b) in the sum of HK$25,000.00 to the 1^st Defendant, HK$1,000.00 to the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendant, HK$21,958.00 to the 4^th Defendant and HK$7,000.00 to the 5^th Defendant herein and in the sum of HK$17,500.00 to the Defendant in HCA 328 of 2007.

Dated this 17^th day of August 2007.

Registrar

Schedule 1

Part A

The Relevant Proceedings

1.	HCA 2735 of 2006 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Alexander K. C. Lee; Lo, Chan & Leung (Dismissed).
2.	HCA 328 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Li Kam Chuen).
3.	HCA 789 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Lau Chan Ko & Co. (discontinued); Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co. (discontinued); Tai, Tang & Chong (dismissed).
4.	HCA 1242 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Johnnie Yam; Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co.; Alexander K. C. Lee; Li & Partners; Flourish Property Agency Ltd.; Sammi Wai Yee Chow; Steven Wai Keung Poon).
5.	DCCJ 600 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Alexander K. C. Lee; Li Kam Chuen (Discontinued).
6.	SCTC 022798 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Poon Wai Keung; Chow Wai Yee, Lee Shun Chung; Li Kam Chuen).
7.	SCTC 024595 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Cheung Chi Wai; Johnnie Yam; Tai, Tang & Chong (discontinued); Poon Wai Keung; Chow Wai Yee; Lee Shun Chung; Li Kam Chuen).

Part B

List of Subject Matters falling within the scope of the RPO

(i)	All letters, affirmations and documents written or prepared by Alexander Lee King Chung in respect of his retainer from Li Kam Chuen and/or Bettabob Investment Company Limited in HCA 2574 of 2005, HCCW 572 of 2005 or CACV 11 of 2006.
(ii)	All instructions allegedly made by Alexander Lee King Chung to Yuen Oi Yee Lisa to investigate the accounts of Bettabob Investment Company Limited.
(iii)	All instructions allegedly made by Alexander Lee King Chung to Yuen Oi Yee Lisa to translate any letters, affirmations or other documents in HCA 2574 of 2005, HCCW 572 of 2005 or CACV 11 of 2006.
(iv)	All letters, correspondence and documents generated by Lo Chan & Leung when the firm was retained by Li Kam Chuen and/or Bettabob Investment Company Limited in HCA 2574 of 2005, HCCW 572 of 2005 or CACV 11 of 2006.
(v)	All statements allegedly made orally or otherwise by Alexander Lee King Chung on 5 September 2006
(vi)	All statements allegedly made by Alexander Lee King Chung to one “Mr Lau” in relation to Yuen Oi Yee Lisa.
(vii)	The Letter of Undertaking and Indemnity dated 4 April 2007.
(viii)	Any Sale and Purchase Agreements executed by Bettabob Investment Company Limited
(ix)	All statements allegedly made by Alexander Lee King Chung to Sammi Chow, Steven Poon and or other unidentified persons in relation to the alleged sale and purchase of Bettabob Investment Company Limited’s properties.
(x)	The sum of HK$50,000 allegedly to be given by Mr. Li Kam Chuen to Yuen Oi Yee Lisa as promised in consideration of withdrawal or dismissal or discontinuance of any legal proceedings against Mr. Li Kam Chuen and/or allegedly due to Yuen Oi Yee Lisa by way of debit note signed by Yuen Oi Yee Lisa
(xi)	All correspondence and communications between Mr. Li Kam Chuen and Yuen Oi Yee Lisa including all those alleged to be defamatory statements made against Yuen Oi Yee Lisa
(xii)	All communications, including but not limited to telephone calls, e-mails, and correspondence between the Plaintiff and Bettabob, its previous and current shareholders and/or directors, and /or their agents and/or servants concerning or touch upon HCA 789 of 2007 or HCA 1242 of 2007;
(xiii)	All letters, documents, statements, materials and information transpired between the Plaintiff and Bettabob, its current and previous directors and/or shareholders, and/or their agents and/or servants concerning or touch upon HCA 789 of 2007 or HCA 1242 of 2007;
(xiv)	All agreements (if there is any), either in oral or in writing or by conduct between the Plaintiff and Bettabob, its current and previous directors and/or shareholders, and/or their agents and/or servants concerning or touch upon HCA 789 of 2007 or HCA 1242 of 2007;
(xv)	All affirmations or affidavits and all documents and materials for the preparation of HCA 789 of 2007 or HCA 1242 of 2007;
(xvi)	All documents and materials prepared by Bettabob, its current or previous directors and/or shareholders, and/or their agent and/or servants for the purposes of the above-mentioned items;
(xvii)	All claims or allegations against judges and other officers of the Court or Tribunals, lawyers (including Counsel, solicitors, trainee solicitors, legal executives and legal clerks, other than lawyers acting for Lisa Yuen) for or in respect of their participation in or conduct of the Relevant Proceedings, or as a result of their involvement in any of the Relevant Proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, the said claims and allegations shall include any form of allegations or demands arising from the fact that the said persons or any of them were involved in any of the Relevant Proceedings in whatever capacity.

Part C

Causes of Action

1.	Defamation;
2.	Debit Notes issued by Yuen Oi Yee Lisa or her companies or firms;
3.	Breach of oral agreement;
4.	Injury to feeling;
5.	Professional negligence against solicitors or counsel and
6.	Vicarious liability.

SCHEDULE 2

1.	HCA 2735 of 2006 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Alexander K. C. Lee; Lo, Chan & Leung (Dismissed).
2.	HCA 328 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Li Kam Chuen).
3.	HCA 789 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Lau Chan Ko & Co. (discontinued); Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co. (discontinued); Tai, Tang & Chong (dismissed).
4.	HCA 1242 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Johnnie Yam; Johnnie Yam, Jacky Lee & Co.; Alexander K. C. Lee; Li & Partners; Flourish Property Agency Ltd.; Sammi Wai Yee Chow; Steven Wai Keung Poon).
5.	DCCJ 600 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa -v- Alexander K. C. Lee; Li Kam Chuen (Discontinued).
6.	SCTC 022798 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Poon Wai Keung; Chow Wai Yee, Lee Shun Chung; Li Kam Chuen).
7.	SCTC 024595 of 2007 (Yuen Oi Yee Lisa –v- Bettabob Investment Co. Ltd.; Cheung Chi Wai; Johnnie Yam; Tai, Tang & Chong (discontinued); Poon Wai Keung; Chow Wai Yee; Lee Shun Chung; Li Kam Chuen).

HCA 2735/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.2735 OF 2006

______________________

BETWEEN

YUEN OI YEE LISA Plaintiff

and

ALEXANDER K.C. LEE 1st Defendant

LO CHAN & LEUNG (dismissed) 2nd Defendant

______________________

HCA 328/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.328 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

YUEN OI YEE LISA Plaintiff

and

LI KAM CHUEN Defendant

______________________

HCA 789/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.789 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

YUEN OI YEE LISA Plaintiff

and

BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD. 1^st Defendant

LAU CHAN KO & CO. (discontinued) 2^nd Defendant

JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO. (discontinued) 3rd Defendant

TAI, TANG & CHONG (dismissed) 4th Defendant

______________________

HCA 1242/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.1242 OF 2007

______________________

BETWEEN

YUEN OI YEE LISA Plaintiff

and

BETTABOB INVESTMENT CO. LTD. 1^st Defendant

JOHNNIE YAM 2^nd Defendant

JOHNNIE YAM, JACKY LEE & CO. 3rd Defendant

ALEXANDER LEE 4th Defendant

LI & PARTNERS 5th Defendant

FLOURISH PROPERTY AGENCY LTD. 6th Defendant

SAMMI WAI YEE CHOW 7th Defendant

STEVEN WAI KEUNG POON 8th Defendant

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

O R D E R

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Filed the day of August 2007.

P.C. Woo & Co.

Solicitors for the 1^st Defendant in HCA 2735 of 2006,

the 4^th Defendant in HCA 789 of 2007

the 4^th Defendant in HCA 1242 of 2007,

Room 1225, Prince’s Building

10 Chater Road

Central, Hong Kong

Tel. : 2533 7700 Fax. : 2525 5737

High Court Registry Box No.655

Ref. : 102406:SPT(AP):cw

[i:\users\klm\Essar\10240\Ord-RaoRpo(2).doc]

YUEN OI YEE LISA AND ANOTHER v. ALEXANDER KC LEE

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition