THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. BRIAN ALFRED HALL

HCMP 1201/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1201 OF 2008

---------------------

---------------------

----------------------

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1.  This is an application of the Secretary for Justice made pursuant to section 27 of the High Court Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) to adjudge the defendant Brian Alfred Hall to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of the Ordinance.  In my previous judgment under HCSA30/2008 delivered on 14 August 2008, I have made a restrictive proceedings order (“RPO”) against the same defendant on the ground that he had instituted 105 sets of proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal and the High Court in the past few years.  

2.  I find the defendant a vexatious litigant in that many of his applications were trivial and abusing the process of the court.  In the supporting affidavit of the plaintiff affirmed by Ms Jenny Fung Mei Fung, the litigation history of the defendant was stated in detail.  I do not intend to repeat them here.  Suffice it for me to say the defendant was clearly a vexatious litigant picking on trivial matters and making allegations which were not substantiated and were found to be untrue by various tribunals.

3.  Accordingly I consider that it is appropriate to make an order under section 27 of the Ordinance and I so order.  In response to the application of Ms Fung who appeared for the plaintiff, I think costs should follow the event and therefore the plaintiff can have the costs of these proceedings against the defendant, although I was told that that was just for the purpose of record.

4.  Further in between August and today in the month of October, the defendant has already made six applications for leave to institute proceedings against various persons.  Today the defendant has withdrawn three of them.  I am sending copies of his application to the plaintiff for her responses to these three applications before I consider whether leave should be granted to the defendant.