SANDMARTIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v, ZHI, CHARLES

HCMP 1035/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1035 OF 2017

___________________

__________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Defendant (Zhi) has not appeared today. Indeed, he has not acknowledged the service of the Originating Summons filed on 4 May 2017.

2. The Notice of Appointment for today has been served on Zhi.  The court has the power under O.28, r.4(1) to deal with these matters summarily under the circumstances.

3. I am satisfied on the evidence before the court that a clear case has been made out for an order restraining Zhi from commencing any fresh legal proceedings (Restricted Proceedings Order) against the Plaintiff (SIH). 

4. Zhi is a well-known litigant.  It appears from the evidence that he has been engaging himself in suing Hong Kong listed companies.  SIH is one of 10 such companies Zhi has sued.  Many of these actions by Zhi against listed companies involve other parties, such as the directors and professional advisers of the companies.  Even the Hong Kong Stock Exchange Ltd and the Securities and Futures Commission had been subjected to Zhi’s actions. 

5. It appears that none of Zhi’s actions or interlocutory applications has been successful thus far.  Recently, a winding up Petition filed by Zhi against SIH was struck out by the court: see Zhi Charles v Sandmartin International Holdings Ltd & Ors, HCCW 90/2017, 21 April 2017.

6. In addition to that Petition, there are 3 other actions by Zhi against SIH.  One of them (HCMP 284/2017), which involved 4 other plaintiffs, had been struck out due to the failure to comply with an unless order for the filing of evidence by the plaintiffs.  One of them (HCA 2948/2016) had been dismissed in respect of the SIH related defendants pursuant to a Notice of Discontinuance filed by Zhi.  Zhi has also filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of the 3^rd action (HCA 3346/2016), but no order has yet been made for its disposal.  It should be said that there is much overlap and repetition amongst these 3 actions and the Petition.

7. By reason of the multiplicity of proceedings brought by Zhi against another listed company, Siberian Mining Group Co Ltd, a Restricted Proceedings Order was made against him by G Lam J in Siberian Mining Group Co Ltd v Zhi Charles [2016] 4 HKLRD 88. 

8. There is no doubt in my mind that the requirements under s.27(2) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, have been met, and it is clearly right for the court to exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought.  It should be pointed out that the timing of various proceedings taken by Zhi against SIH suggests that they were designed to cause maximum prejudice to the latter. 

9. The order being sought is modelled on that in Siberian Mining Group Co Ltd v Zhi Charles, supra.  I agree with Mr Siu, appearing for SIH, that the terms of the order strike the right balance in that there is no absolute bar against Zhi for bringing further proceedings against SIH. However, a filtering system will be put in place in that Zhi will have to obtain the leave of the court for such action.  Alternatively, his action will have to be signed off by a legal practitioner. 

10. For completeness, I agree with Mr Siu that, in view of the nature of this application, there is no requirement that leave from the court be obtained before bringing this application despite Zhi’s bankruptcy. 

11. In the premises, I make an order in terms of paras 1 and 3 of the Originating Summons.