YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. LEUNG YIK HONG, FRED AND OTHERS

DCCJ7079/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7079 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  CHONG KONG PO, SALLY 1st Defendant
KEN WONG 2nd Defendant
JACKY HO 3rd Defendant
KEN HUI 4th Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7080/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7080 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  CHIU WING WAH, WILSON Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7081/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7081 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  CHAN KAM WAH, KENT Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7184/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7184 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  KU LAI CHIU, CINDY 1st Defendant
CHAN KWAI HING, CHANNY 2nd Defendant
HO SIU KWAN, MANDY 3rd Defendant
LEUNG MAN YEE, SOFIA 4th Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7185/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7185 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  CHAN KEUNG Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7257/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7257 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  LEUNG YIK HON, FRED 1st Defendant
LAM CHUN WAI, ANNO 2nd Defendant

____________________

DCCJ7258/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7258 OF 2003

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  TSE MEI PO, MABLE 1st Defendant
CHOI YIN KI, ADA 2nd Defendant
HO MAY HAR, SANNIE 3rd Defendant

____________________

DCCJ2702/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2702 OF 2004

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and
  LUI CHUNG TAK 1st Defendant
TSUI YIU MING, ALLEN 2nd Defendant
KUI SUK YIN, KIMMY 3rd Defendant

(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

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  LEUNG YIK HONG, FRED 1st Defendant
HIG-DHP BARBADOS LTD 2nd Defendant
HIG CAPITAL 3rd Defendant
DESA INTERNATIONAL LLC 4th Defendant

____________________

DCCJ442/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 442 OF 2005

____________________

BETWEEN

  YUEN OI YEE, LISA Plaintiff
  and  
  CHAN CHI TAK, RINGO 1st Defendant
CHAN HON HUNG 2nd Defendant
CHAU CHI SANG 3rd Defendant
CHIK KIN WING 4th Defendant
LAM KAI KUONG 5th Defendant
LI CHI KEUNG, DENNIS 6th Defendant
LUI CHIU MAN 7th Defendant
MOK SHUT YING, JENNY 8th Defendant
NGAI PING SUN 9th Defendant
YEUNG CHUNG FAT 10th Defendant
HIG-DHP BARBADOS LTD 11th Defendant
HIG CAPITAL 12th Defendant
DESA INTERNATIONAL LLC 13th Defendant

____________________

Coram: Her Honour Judge H C Wong in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 August 2005

Date of Decision: 12 August 2005

_____________

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 pendingthe trial and outcome of the trial of High Court Action No. 509/2004 against the 2nd defendant in that action, Mr Lai, in the HighCourt. 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 toprove her early knowledge of the existence of the two documents, the subject of which are central to the three actions here. Shewill attempt to obtain from Mr Lai at High Court Action 509/2004 such information to assist her information to assist her presentactions and therefore she asks this court to adjourn or stay the application for leave to appeal until after completion of the trialof 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 judgmentof 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 Commissionsfollowing the plaintiff’s complaint to that body, the same reasoning applies to Mr Lai’s case that had applied in Heath’s caseand therefore Mr Lai would be able to use the same reasoning to strike out Miss Yuen’s claim against him. For this reason, MrMok 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 formerstaff 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 thedefendant in two of the plaintiff’s actions, would willingly turn up as her witness to give evidence, although it may merely bethe plaintiff’s so-called early knowledge of the complaint letter by the staff and the Leung e-mail. Therefore, even if it istrue that Mr Lai had indeed surfaced after a two year absence to defend High Court Action 509/2004, it would still not assist theplaintiff. The ICAC documents would also be subject to the same degree of privilege and immunity as the EOC documents. If the EOCdocuments 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 509/2004may come to trial and in the trial process the documents could be disclosed. It is not something that is likely to happen becauseso far as I can see the ICAC complaint made by the plaintiff against Mr Lai has little relevance so far as the High Court Action509/2004 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 thatthe plaintiff has shown any chance of success in the appeal whatsoever. Her claims were frivolous and vexatious and abuse of processof court, and for reasons I have set out in my decision of 20 July this year, there is no element of public interest whatsoever inspite of the plaintiff’s claim. For these reasons, I dismiss the plaintiff’s application for adjournment of the applicationand the application for leave to appeal.

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

  (H C Wong)
District Court Judge

Representation:

Plaintiff, in person, present

Mr Johnny Mok, instructed by Messrs Johnston Stokes & Masters, for the 1st to 19th Defendants in the eight consolidated actions,1st Defendant in DCCJ378/2005, and 1st to 10th Defendants in DCCJ442/2005