Tse Jeekeen v. "H.K. alliance in support of patriotic democratic movement of China" & its chairman Mr. Szeto Wah and Others

CACV 246/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 14 OF 2000)

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Wong JA: (giving the judgment of the court)

1. On 28 March 2000, Chung J. dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the order of Registrar C. Chan dated 10 February 2000 striking out the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, dismissed the action and prohibited the Plaintiff from making further applications in the action without leave of the court. The Plaintiff now appeals.

2. A recital of the relevant part of the judgment of Chung J will make it demonstrably clear why the Plaintiff must fail both in his action and in his appeal. At p6 to p8 of the bundle, the judge said :

"Having heard the parties and considered the materials before me, I agree entirely with the learned Registrar's order against the Plaintiff. There are at least two bases on which the learned Registrar's order can be supported:-

(1) the Statement of Claim herein discloses that the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is based on an alleged slander of the Central Government of the PRC and its leaders, an alleged incitement of the public against them, an alleged attempt to overthrow the Central Government and treasonable link to foreign powers. Even if these allegations were true, the Plaintiff lacks the necessary locus standi to commence this action. This action should be struck out and dismissed on that ground alone;

(2) further to (1) above, the same or similar matters have been brought by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendants earlier in HCA 13938 of 1998. That action has been struck out and dismissed by the Court in an order of the Master dated 10 March 1998, an order of Cheung J. dated 12 April 1998, a Judgment of 15 July 1998 of the Court of Appeal and a Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal dated 10 September 1998."

The Judge went on :

"I enquired with the Plaintiff at the hearing on 23 March 2000 why he considered he could still institute this action after the earlier action had been dismissed. He gave two reasons in response:-

(a) he should be entitled to a trial of his claim and both the earlier action and this action were dismissed without a trial;

(b) the decisions to dismiss the earlier action were not decisions of the learned Judges at various levels of the Hong Kong Courts but were the decisions of the former President of the U.S., Mr George Bush, made through the Hong Kong Government.

The Plaintiff went on to say in effect that if I were to dismiss his appeal, I would also be doing so as instructed by Mr Bush. He also said that he would be commencing similar legal proceedings in the Supreme Courts of 164 nations, including that in the U.S.

These remarks of the Plaintiff are astonishing. I have no hesitation in concluding that there is no truth in these wild accusations and the Plaintiff has not even attempted to adduce a scintilla of evidence to support them. I can only infer from these remarks that the Plaintiff was either acting maliciously against the Defendants without any proper basis, or that parts of the faculties of his mind are suffering from some kind of dysfunction.

Further, as regards the Plaintiff s point (a) above, the Courts' decisions in the earlier action were obviously made on the basis that public funds (as well as the resources of the Defendants) should not be further wasted thereon. The history of the two sets of proceedings indicates that they are correct in making those decisions.

For the above reasons, the Plaintiffs appeal is dismissed."

3. We entirely agree with Chung J. and do not think we can add anything to improve his judgment.

4. This is the third time that the Plaintiff has brought proceedings against the Defendants on precisely the same grounds. He had twice appealed to this court and to the Court of Final Appeal for leave and all his applications were refused.

5. We are satisfied that there is no prospect of success whatsoever in these proceedings or any proceedings which he may bring it in future on these grounds. There is a saying "enough is enough" and this is, in our judgment, more than enough.

6. Chung J was absolutely correct to dismiss the appeal and granted the order prohibiting the Plaintiff from commencing further or new action against the Defendants on the same grounds or facts. We would uphold the order made by Chung J with a slight amendment to make it crystal clear and the order would now read as follows :

"The Plaintiff is prohibited from commencing any further new legal proceedings in respect of the same claim or subject matter without leave of the Court of First Instance AND IF notice or any such proceedings shall be given to the Defendants without such leave being obtained, the Defendants shall not be required to appear in such proceedings which shall be dismissed without being heard."

7. We make an order for costs against the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.