TSE WAI KUEN v. HONG KONG GOVERNMENT

---------

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Sir Derek Cons, V.P.:

1. In this appeal the appellant, Maria Tse, otherwise known as Tse Wai Kuen, appears in person.

2. From the appeal bundle, which has been kindly prepared by the Attorney General's Chambers, it seems that on the 11th may this year she took out a writ against the Hong Kong Government. It is on a proforma with the first page being in common form. The second page, which has a printed heading "Statement of Claim", simply has the word "Enclosures" typed on it. By that I take the appellant to have meant the various documents which have since found their way into the court file below and into the appeal bundle. They are of various natures. Taken at random, for example, one is an application for an International Driving Permit; another is a Writ of Summons to appear in an assault case in the magistrates' Court. Included is a long document, of 23 pages, being a petition to the Governor, which sets out various complaints, both general and specific, and which may perhaps indicate some of the matters she had in mind to include in her action. A list of enclosures at p. 91 of the appeal bundle bears very little relation to the documents which we actually find there.

3. The third page in the proforma writ bears no heading other than that typed in as "Mandatory Court orders required by plaintiff". There follow eleven:

"(1)    Compensations plus interests;

  (2)    Custody and Maintenance;

  (3)    Forfeiture of libel records

  (4)    Habeas Corpus;

  (5)    Payment plus interests;

  (6)    Prosecutions;

  (7)    Respective Injunctions;

  (8)    Respective Instructions;

  (9)    Return of all kinds of properties plus interests;

  (10)  Return of all kinds of properties generated from Plaintiff's name or presence;

  (11)    Emergency relief."

4. On the 23rd May the Crown solicitor, apparently acting on behalf of the purported Defendant, i.e. the Hong Kong Government, applied to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that:

       "(a)     it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Hong Kong Government;

(b)    it is frivolous and vexatious; and

(c)    it is an abuse of the process of the court."

Slightly earlier, on the 15th May, the appellant had taken out her own summons, asking in fact for precisely the same reliefs as she had claimed on the third page of the writ itself. Both summonses were returnable on the 19th May.

5. On that day they were called before Deputy Judge Fung, who discovered a disconcertingly close personal relationship with some of the matters in question and very properly declined to hear them. They came again before Mayo, J., on the 2nd June. Having heard the appellant he made an order - according to the note taken by his clerk - that the statement of claim be struck out and plaintiff's claim against the defendant be dismissed for the reason

"that the statement of claim discloses no cause of action; in my view it is neither feasible nor practicable to attempt to formulate any causes of action from the material contained in the voluminous documents filed by the plaintiff".

6. The appellant now appeals to this Court. The grounds of the appeal are that

"the Hong Kong Government is responsible for the discipline of civil servants, the administration and justice of Hong Kong".

7. Yesterday the appellant filed a further affidavit in which she says that she has "repeatedly pleaded at the hearings below that the defendant was absolutely responsible for the discipline of civil servants, the administration and justice of Hong Kong because all of my complaints and sufferings happened within the administration and jurisdiction of Hong Kong". She observes that she has "been a good citizen but has been disturbed and offended for a very long period of time" and that she received even more and crueller ill treatments and disturbances after she had submitted a petition to the Governor; since then she lives "in deep fears, grievances and difficulties" for which she considers the Hong Kong Government be responsible.

8. In speaking to us this afternoon she has drawn our attention to various documents in the bundle. One, at p. 29, refers to problems over her Identity Card, which Miss Hartstein, who appears I presume for the Attorney General, admits is still held by the Immigration Department, having been left there for reasons which are not now apparent, but which card can, if the appellant wishes to do so, be very easily re-claimed by her by going to the Immigration Department headquarters at Wanchai Tower 2 in Harbour Road. Another document, at p. 46, refers to police violence the appellant claims to have suffered when she went to the Government House on one occasion, and in other places on other occasions. At p. 52 she sets out grievances that she has against the Judiciary and her lawyers in relation to divorce proceedings. At p. 5 she sets out allegations arising from the custody proceedings and difficulties that she sustained after her divorce. At p. 105 she sets out her complaints against the medical profession. Page 104 covers general disturbances which include, for example, an occasion when she went to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to find that the bank's computer was not working, and on her return home, that her own washing machine had also broken down.

9. It may be, and I put it no higher, that the appellant has some complaints which are by their nature amenable to proceedings in the court below. Whether they would succeed if properly brought to trial is a matter which cannot concern us today. But it is quite clear to my mind that on her proceedings as presently formulated, she has not the slightest chance of success and the judge below was quite right to strike out the writ of summons and to dismiss the claim. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.

Power, J.A.:

10. I concur with all that has been fallen from the Vice President.

Sears, J.:

11. I agree.