YUEN OI YEE LISA v. HO YIU KUEN JACKY AND OTHERS

CACV 285/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA nO. 272 OF 2006)

(formerly deco 3 of 2005)

_______________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

CACV 289/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA nO. 230 OF 2006)

(formerly DCCJ 3542 of 2005)

_______________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

CACV 290/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA nO. 509 OF 2004)

_______________________

______________________

(HEARD TOGETHER) 

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 31 January 2007, in the absence of the appellant – Ms Yuen Oi Yee, Lisa, an order was made in each of the three appeals lodged by Ms Yuen that she should furnish security for the respondent’s (“Mr Lai Yu Fai”) costs of the appeal in the sum of $200,000 by making cash payment into court.

2.  On 1 February 2007, Ms Yuen took out a summons asking for the security for costs orders to be set-aside on the basis that she had been granted sick leave on 31 January 2007.

3.  Ms Yuen has exhibited a copy of the medical certificate showing that she attended Queen Mary Hospital on 31 January 2007 and was recommended sick leave on that day although it was not mentioned what sickness she was suffering from.

4.  On 13 February 2007, Ms Yuen took out another summons in CACV 285/2006 seeking the following orders:

“1.   To ask for security to be retained by the Court from the respondent of HK$13,421,941 as my loss of income once if I may pay the demanded security on costs;

2.  To ask for an ‘Interpretation’ to S 86 of SDO;

3.  To consider my agency fees in arrear in HCA 2742/2006.”

5.  It appears to be Ms Yuen’s contention that if she were to be successful in her claim, she would be entitled to damages in excess of $13 million, much more than the amount of the security for costs ordered against her. Therefore it would be unfair to ask her to pay the respondent’s security for costs.

6.  Ms Yuen also suggests that if she were to be successful in HCA 2742/2006, she could recover over $460,000 from her ex-employer and therefore she should only be required to pay the security for costs when she “obtains such an amount either from a court settlement or (an) out of court settlement”.

7.  On 7 March 2007, Ms Yuen took out yet another summons in CACV 285/2006 seeking an extension of time until 30 August 2007 to pay the $200,000 security for costs ordered on 31 January 2007. Ms Yuen again reiterates that she is confident of a successful claim for $460,000 in HCA 2742/2006.

8.  In the course of her submission, Ms Yuen informs that court that she is not really keen to pursue CACV 289/2006 and 290/2006, but wishes to concentrate on CACV 285/2006, as it is the most important appeal.

9.  It may not be necessary to set out the history of Ms Yuen’s disputes with Mr Lai and they had all been described in detail in the first instance judgments.

10.  I have considered carefully Ms Yuen’s causes of action and her proposed grounds of appeal in each of the three appeals. Ms Yuen’s proposed appeals are unmeritorious.

11.  I have also considered the allegations by Mr Lai set out in the affirmations in support of his security for costs application, which allegations Ms Yuen had not challenged, not by way of affidavit anyway.

12.  It is clear that what Ms Yuen has been doing is a blatant abuse of the court’s process.

13.  Ms Yuen’s suggestion, that she would be entitled to over $13,000,000 if she is successful in her claim under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, and to over $460,000 from her ex-employer in HCA 2742/2006, is not a valid reason not to order security for costs against her nor is it a valid reason for extending the time for her to furnish such security.

14.  In the circumstances, there is no valid basis for me to accede to any of Ms Yuen’s applications.

15.  The three summonses are all dismissed. As the respondent does not wish to be present at the hearing and chooses not to appear, I make no order as to costs of the applications.