CHENG YIN FONG v. SIU ON COURT OWNER'S CORPORATION c/o CHESTERTON PETTY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.

FAMV No. 3 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 185 OF 1999)

_____________________

_______________________

DETERMINATION

_______________________

Mr Justice Ching PJ :

1. This is not the first time that this applicant has appeared before this Committee. She issued three sets of proceedings two of which were against 'Wah Kee Vegetables of Stall No. 57, On Ting Estate Market, Tuen Mun' and 'On Ting Newspapers Stall of Stall No. 1, On Ting Estate Market, Tuen Mun'. In them she alleged that two men had sexually harassed her by appearing in public naked to the waist and by swearing at her. The actions were struck out by a Master. She appealed to a Judge in the Court of First Instance, Yeung J, who confirmed the decision and gave a reasoned judgment delivered on 21 June 1999. She appealed to the Court of Appeal upon which an order for security for costs was made against her. She did not comply with that order and her appeal was dismissed on 12 November 1999. She then applied to this Committee for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. On 27 January 2000 we were content to say that she had put forward no facts showing a cause of action known to the law and refused leave.

2. The third action was against 'C P Property Management Limited, The Management Office of Siu On Court'. This action was also struck out, a decision confirmed by Yeung J, in his judgment on 21 June 1999. It is not known whether any order for security for costs was made but it is clear that in dismissing the appeal in the other two actions the Court of Appeal said that they were not seized of an appeal in this action and that they were not dealing with it in their judgment on 12 November 1999. She appeared before that Court on 25 November 1999, when her appeal was dismissed. On 11 January 2000 it refused her leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and she now applies to us.

3. In his judgment, Yeung J, found that no facts had been pleaded to bring home any liability to the present respondent, that there had been no sexual harassment and that with one possible exception the acts complained of did not fall within the sections of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, Cap. 480. The exception he identified arose from section 40(1) which provides that

"It is unlawful for a person to sexually harass a woman in the course of offering to provide, or providing, goods, facilities or services to her."

There being no factual basis disclosed to show that the present respondent was offering to provide or providing goods, facilities or services to the applicant the judge was correct in holding that the section did not assist her. A vendor displaying goods for sale does not offer them for sale. He merely offers to enter into negotiations for their sale. So, too, a person who offers services.

4. There is no merit in this application. Once more, the applicant has put forward nothing to show any cause of action known to the law. These proceedings have been a waste of time. The application is dismissed with costs.