TSO MAN KUEN JASMINE (Formerly named as “TSO MAN KUEN”, before 28 December 2018) v. MA WAI PING AND OTHERS

HCA 2083/2023

[2024] HKCFI 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2083 OF 2023

__________________

__________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

1.  This is the hearing of the plaintiff’s Summons taken out on 16 February 2024 (the “Summons”), fixed for 30 minutes, for a number of orders and directions.

2.  The plaintiff and Madam Ma Wai Ping (馬惠屏) appeared before this Court in in person.

3.  Although the hearing was conducted in Punti, as all the documents prepared by the plaintiff are in English, I decide to give this Decision in English. Any parties who require any interpretation of this Decision may approach my Clerk for arrangement.

4.  This Court has made efforts to understand the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. It is not a straightforward task. The following parts of her 37-page Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim give some ideas:

(a)  From page 1, it appears that she is suing on “Fraudulent Contract by Misrepresentation, Conspiracy of Defraud, False Accounting… etc” and “Electronic Harassment & Organized Stalking, TI Program… etc.”

(b)  At page 3, the plaintiff states the “Highlight of Statement Claims”, that:

“The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants and groups of Defendants for the different items shown in the enclosed “Statement of Claims”, and that the Plaintiff has been illegally covertly allocated to an “Illegal human experimental program” or “Targeted individual list” or “Black name 24/7 Surveillance watchlist”; application of injunctive relief in aid of criminal law, in relation to the Defendants’ acts of encouragement and incitement of the use and covert technologies (e.g. frequency generator Apps in mobile phone…etc.) in causing bodily injury to the Plaintiff unlawfully within Hong Kong or damage to the Plaintiff’s any property unlawfully within Hong Kong, for the following relief:-

(1) Immediate release of Emergency relief of money in advance and/ or settle the Plaintiff’s all the outstanding debts (e.g. HKD3 million – 4 million…etc.)

(2) Total Compensation Amount (HKD1,099.361 million, or HKD1.099 billion) ***

(3) Immediate Suspension of the third parties for debt collection (HKD3 million to 4 million) from the Plaintiff

(4) Application for the following injunction orders …”

(c)  From page 9, the plaintiff mentions “the Contracts of the Oi Man Seafood” and says that “the Plaintiff was confirmed to be misrepresented (misled) by the Defendants in entering” the same;

(d)  At page 13 the plaintiff says:

“The different nano RFID chip implants have been covertly illegally injected into the Plaintiff’s head/ different locations of her body at the different beauty salons/ other business premises by different government sponsored gang stalkers directed by the different above list of Defendants including Research Professors/ students… etc.. Those chips implants will occasionally be triggered by certain timers/ devices, those nano RFID chip implants can emit low frequencies that will transverse the interior of the body.”

5.  The plaintiff’s previous application for judgment in default of acknowledgement of service was dismissed by Master Kent Yee on 25 January 2024.

6.  D2’s application to strike out the Statement of claim and to dismiss the claim against him was allowed by Master Lai on 21 February 2024 (the “Striking out and Dismissal Order”).

7.  In the Summons, the plaintiff seeks various orders and directions:

(a)  §A:

(i)  The plaintiff makes an “Application for Extension of Time for Reply for Defendant 2’s Reply”;

(ii)  It is not altogether clear what the plaintiff seeks. But whatever it is, in the light of the Striking out and Dismissal Order, the 2^nd defendant is no longer a party to the action;

(iii)  I dismiss §A;

(b)  §B:

(i)  The plaintiffs makes thereby an “Application to Split the case into 2 parts, transfer the Defendants Group 1 (Ma….etc.) for the Prosecution of Criminal Charges for the different crimes previously voiced out by the Plaintiff and described below …”

(ii)  These are not criminal proceedings. This Court has no jurisdiction to transfer any part of this case to any court for the purpose of criminal prosecution;

(iii)  §B is dismissed;

(c)  §C:

(i)  The plaintiff makes thereby an “Application for Anti-Electronic harassment by organized stalking Injunctions”;

(ii)  No basis for any such injunction, in law or in facts, has been made out;

(iii)  §C is dismissed;

(d)  §D:

(i)  The plaintiff seeks thereby an “Application to seek Summary Judgement and Final Judgement for the Compensation in Civil Action Claims (o.14, District Court/ High Court)”;

(ii)  To start with, the identity of the 1^st defendant is undefined. There is no legal or factual basis to seek final judgment against the undefined “other associated concerned Ma Family members & their Spouses, and other concerned external parties/companies”;

(iii)  In any event, the legal basis of the plaintiff’s claim against the 1^st defendant is far from clear. I have considered section D of the plaintiff’s affidavit in support filed on 16 February 2024. She claims that (her original emphasis):

“Based on the previous and recent reply from the Defendant Group 1 (Ma) submitted to the District Court under the Civil Action Claims in ref. DCCJ127/2022(Appendix 2), the Defendants Group 1 does not admit that the set of financial information (average profit of HKD150,000/ month) published onto the BUB’s website and business profile for the Oi Man Seafood in June 2020 is true. In another words, the Defendants Group 1 already admits that the set of financial information published onto the BUB’s website and business profile for the Oi Man Seafood is false …”

(iv)  I have considered the relevant paragraph of that “reply”. What is stated therein is actually as follows:

“雖然原告人聲稱愛民魚枱業務的若干財務資料已在網上公佈(未獲承認)，但第一被告人從未向BUB提供任何該等資料或文件，亦從未授權BUB在網上公佈任何有關愛民魚枱業務的未經核實或不正確的資料。BUB發佈資訊之前從未尋求第一被告的批准…”

(v)  The plaintiff has mis-construed the effect of that paragraph. No admission has been made by the 1^st defendant;

(vi)  In my view, no prima facie case has been made out by P against the 1^st defendant for any final judgment;

(vii)  §D is dismissed.

(e)  §E:

(i)  The plaintiff only asks a question therein, that “A Person commits a crime and also be sued in a Civil Court for the same Act?”

(ii)  No answer is called for.

8.  I dismiss the plaintiff’s Summons.

9.  I order that the plaintiff should bear costs of the application. Madam Ma Wai Ping seeks costs in the sum of HK$500, which I allow.