LEE YIU KEI v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1881/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1881 OF 2014

_____________

_____________

__________________________

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

_______________________

1.  In the hearing on 15 October 2014, I strike out the plaintiff’s claims and make RAOs and RPOs against the plaintiff in these 3 actions. I now give my reasons.

2.  The hearing is conducted in Chinese.  However, since all the relevant documents submitted by the parties are in English, I decide to hand down these Reasons for Decisions in English.

Background

3.  The background of this case has been set out in my Decision handed down earlier on 9 October 2012 (“the Decision”).  In short, the plaintiff’s claims relate to the redevelopment of Lai Sing Court at 13-15 Tai Hang Road, Hong Kong (“Former Building”), which has now been demolished and turned into a new development known as Serenade at No 11 Tai Hang Road, Hong Kong (“New Building”).

4.  The plaintiff and Madam Leung Kwai Ling Loretta (“Madam Leung”), as spouses and joint tenants, were the registered owners of a unit in the Former Building.  Pursuant to a Development Agreement (“the Development Agreement”) entered into on 1 May 2001 between HK Glory Properties Ltd (“HK Glory”) as developer, Hongkong Land Ltd (“HK Land”) as guarantor, and the majority owners of the Former Building (including the plaintiff and Madam Leung), the parties agreed to demolish the Former Building and develop the New Building upon the terms set out therein.  HK Glory and HK Land have fulfilled their obligations under the Development Agreement in full.  Yet, the plaintiff and Madam Leung are in breach and still fail to complete the assignment of the new unit in the New Building which they had agreed to accept assignment of under the Development Agreement.

5.  After the completion of the redevelopment project under the Development Agreement, Madam Leung had commenced numerous unwarranted and vexatious proceedings against HK Glory and HK Land and their directors (“Madam Leung’s Proceedings”) which are set out in great detail in the supporting affidavits of the defendants made by Robert Yau Chung Wong on 24 September 2014 (“the defendants’ Affidavits”).

6.  As stated in the defendants’ Affidavits, all of Madam Leung’s Proceedings have been dismissed with finality.

7.  Further, M Ng DHCJ made RAOs and RPOs against Madam Leung on 13 August 2013 in HCA 347/2103 and HCA 432/2013, which are 2 of Madam Leung’s Proceedings, restricting any further application or commencement of any fresh proceedings on any matters involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to Madam Leung’s Proceedings concerning the Development Agreement.

8.  Madam Leung is therefore restrained from litigating any claims relating to the Development Agreement in her own personal capacity without the leave of the court.  Madam Leung has also exhausted all venues of appeal on the RAOs and RPOs made against her and the orders dismissing Madam Leung’s Proceedings (see: Leung Kwai Ling v Hongkong Land Ltd & HK Glory Properties Ltd, unreported, HCMP 699/2014 and CACV 260 & 261/2013, decision of the Court of Appeal on 24 September 2014).

Merits of the striking out applications

9.  Now the plaintiff is making the same claims against HK Glory and HK Land relating to the Development Agreement.  No matter how the plaintiff is framing his claims, whether they involve a claim for repossession of his own unit or otherwise, the plaintiff is in substance making the same claims against HK Glory and HK Land which have already been dismissed by the court in Madam Leung’s Proceedings.

10.  Madam Leung herself has prepared most of the documents for the present proceedings.  Although she has no locus to represent the plaintiff, she appeared in all the hearings before the court in these proceedings.  She dictated all the oral submissions by the plaintiff.  By 2 summonses dated 9 October 2014, the plaintiff also applies for an order to allow Madam Leung to be joined as a co-plaintiff.  Further, the Particulars of Claims from the plaintiff dated 11 September 2014 filed in HCMP 1881/2014 and the Particulars of Claims from the plaintiff dated 3 September 2014 and Further Particulars of Claims from the plaintiff dated 9 September 2014 filed in HCMP 1882/2014 were all jointly signed by the plaintiff and Madam Leung, referring the latter as “other claimant”.  The plaintiff and Madam Leung also confirmed in these documents that the claims in the said proceedings are jointly for them.  Under these circumstances, I have reasons to believe that the present proceedings are simply an ill-disguised attempt by Madam Leung to circumvent the RAOs and RPOs made against her and she seeks to re-litigate the same matters already dismissed by court.

11.  Even if Madam Leung is not the person behind manipulating the conduct of the present proceedings, there is no reason why the plaintiff could not have joined earlier in Madam Leung’s Proceedings so that all the disputes between the parties relating to the Development Agreement could be resolved in one set of proceedings.  It is certainly an abuse of process and manifestly unfair to the defendants that the plaintiff and Madam Leung, who are in effect joint claimants, be allowed to litigate the same issues twice, and the plaintiff is clearly prohibited by the principle of res judicata in the wider sense to commence another set of proceedings against the defendants (see: §18/19/11 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2014, vol 1).   Hence, all the plaintiff’s claims in these proceedings should be struck out as abuse of process of the court.

Merits of the RAO and RPO applications

12.  As mentioned above, Madam Leung has kept on issuing unwarranted and vexatious proceedings against HK Glory, HK Land and other related parties involved in the redevelopment project, and that is the reason why the following RAOs and RPOs were made:

(i)   RAOs and RPOs made by Ng DHCJ dated 13 August 2013 against Madam Leung in HCA 347/2013 & HCA 432/2013, which involved claims by Madam Leung against HK Glory and HK Land; and

(ii)   RAO and RPO made by me against the plaintiff and Madam Leung in HCA 1225/2013, which involved a claim against the trustees for the sale of the Former Building and the land on which it was situated.

13.  Now it is the plaintiff’s turn to start the abuse again.  Taking into account the history of these cases, I have reasons to believe that, unless the plaintiff is also restrained by RAO and RPO, he would continue to commence unfounded actions and applications against the present defendants or other related parties on the same subject matter.  It would be a waste of court time and resources to allow such claims to proceed, and I therefore make RAOs and RPOs against the plaintiff in these proceedings to prevent further abuse of the court process.

HCMP 2526/2014

14.  Just 2 days before the hearing on 15 October 2014, the plaintiff issued another proceedings, HCMP No 2526/2014, against HK Glory.  The Registry has brought my attention to this case because I had previously made a RAO and RPO against the plaintiff in HCA 1225/2013 which involved a claim by the plaintiff and Madam Leung against the trustees for sale.

15.  Obviously, the plaintiff is, in substance, making the same claim in HCMP 2526/2014 against HK Glory relating to the Development Agreement.  Upon my own motion, I bring this case up in the hearing for the plaintiff to show cause as to why the court should not strike out his claim and make a similar RAO and RPO against him.  After hearing his submission which is totally without merit, I strike out the claim and make similar RAO and RPO against the plaintiff in HCMP No 2526/2014.

16.  Finally, I also strike out the following summonses in HCMP 1881/2014 and HCMP 1882/2014 as they are hopelessly without merit:

(i) the summonses dated 7 October 2014 by the plaintiff to strike out the defendants’ summonses; and

(ii) the summonses dated 9 October 2014 for Madam Leung to be joined as a co-plaintiff.

17.  As HK Glory has not incurred any costs in defending the claim in HCMP 2526/2014, I do not make any costs order in such proceedings.  For all the other actions and applications, I order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs on indemnity basis, as the institution of these proceedings clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

18.  These are the reasons for the decisions I make in the hearing.