YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHONG KONG PO, SALLY AND OTHERS

DCCJ7079/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7079 OF 2003

____________________

____________________

DCCJ7080/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7080 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ7081/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7081 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ7184/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7184 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ7185/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7185 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ7257/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7257 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ7258/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7258 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ2702/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2702 OF 2004

____________________

BETWEEN

(CONSOLIDATED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF HIS HONOUR
JUDGE A TO DATED 3 NOVEMBER 2004)

DCCJ378/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 378 OF 2005

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

DCCJ442/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 442 OF 2005

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  The plaintiff applies at today’s hearing for a stay or adjournment of her application for leave to appeal out of time pending the trial and outcome of the trial of High Court Action No. 509/2004 against the 2nd defendant in that action, Mr Lai, in the High Court.  The application is opposed by Mr Mok, counsel for the defendants.

2.  From what I am given to understand, Miss Yuen’s reasons for adjournment are that Mr Lai will be a vital witness to help her to prove her early knowledge of the existence of the two documents, the subject of which are central to the three actions here.  She will attempt to obtain from Mr Lai at High Court Action 509/2004 such information to assist her information to assist her present actions and therefore she asks this court to adjourn or stay the application for leave to appeal until after completion of the trial of High Court Action 509/2004.

3.  Mr Mok submitted that there will not be a trial of the High Court Action 509/2004 because Mr Lai is bound to rely on the judgment of Tang J (as he then was) of 2 December 2004, striking out Miss Yuen’s claim against the 1st defendant Heath in 509/2004.

4.  Since the plaintiff’s claim against Heath and Mr Lai are based on their respective responses to the Equal Opportunities Commissions following the plaintiff’s complaint to that body, the same reasoning applies to Mr Lai’s case that had applied in Heath’s case and therefore Mr Lai would be able to use the same reasoning to strike out Miss Yuen’s claim against him.  For this reason, Mr Mok contends that there will not be a trial of 509/2004.

5.  Furthermore, Mr Mok submitted that it is unlikely Mr Lai would assist the plaintiff in the present three actions against his former staff and employer.  Neither would the ICAC documents assist the plaintiff because HCA509/2004 was based on the EOC documents.

6.  I agree with Mr Mok’s submission for the reasons set out in my decision of 20 July 2005.  It is unlikely that Mr Lai, who is the defendant in two of the plaintiff’s actions, would willingly turn up as her witness to give evidence, although it may merely be the plaintiff’s so-called early knowledge of the complaint letter by the staff and the Leung e-mail.  Therefore, even if it is true that Mr Lai had indeed surfaced after a two year absence to defend High Court Action 509/2004, it would still not assist the plaintiff.  The ICAC documents would also be subject to the same degree of privilege and immunity as the EOC documents.  If the EOC documents could not be used in these actions, I do not see how the ICAC documents could be used.

7.  Miss Yuen may be trying to show that she had already had knowledge of the two letters when she went to the ICAC soon after her dismissal.  It is incumbent upon her to produce such evidence at the last hearing and not hope that in future the High Court Action 509/2004 may come to trial and in the trial process the documents could be disclosed.  It is not something that is likely to happen because so far as I can see the ICAC complaint made by the plaintiff against Mr Lai has little relevance so far as the High Court Action 509/2004 is concerned which are based on the responses by Heath and Mr Lai to the EOC.

8.  So far as the merits of the plaintiff’s action against the defendants in these three actions are concerned, I cannot see that the plaintiff has shown any chance of success in the appeal whatsoever.  Her claims were frivolous and vexatious and abuse of process of court, and for reasons I have set out in my decision of 20 July this year, there is no element of public interest whatsoever in spite of the plaintiff’s claim.  For these reasons, I dismiss the plaintiff’s application for adjournment of the application and the application for leave to appeal.

9.  I grant to the defendant costs of the two applications in the hearing with certificate for counsel.