TSE JEEKEEN v. HK ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA & ITS CHAIRMAN SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

CACV000103A/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 103
(Civil)

BETWEEN
	TSE JEEKEEN	Plaintiff/ Applicant
	AND
	HK ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA & ITS CHAIRMAN SZETO WAH & 3 OTHERS	Defendants/ Respondents

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

Coram: Hon Nazareth, V.-P., Leong and Rogers, JJ.A. in Court

Date of Hearing: 10 September 1998

Date of Judgment: 10 September 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the decision of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Mr Tse Jeekeen, seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal of his appeal to this Court on 15 July 1998. In that short judgment, the nature of his appeal and our reasons were very clearly given. Plainly, there is no question of leave to appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The application has therefore to be considered under s.22(1)(b) which provides for leave at the discretion of this Court from any judgment of this Court, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of this Court, the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted for decision.

2. Mr Tse Jeekeen has, in fact, not really indicated any question for the consideration of the Court of Final Appeal. He merely says that his action which concerns certain political parties in Hong Kong and the American Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China, is one that should be aired. That does not provide any question that should be referred to the Court of Final Appeal. We have looked at his reasons which he has given us in writing in one page of closely typed typescript. These we find to be the same as those advanced to us at the hearing of the appeal. From this also we are not able to discern any question that would warrant leave or indeed that would qualify for leave under s.22(1)(b).

3. Accordingly we refuse leave.

(G.P. Nazareth)	(Arthur Leong)	(Anthony Rogers)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr Christopher Lam (M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) for the Respondents

CACV000103/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 103
(Civil)

BETWEEN
	TSE JEEKEEN	Plaintiff/ Appellant
	AND
	HK ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA & ITS CHAIRMAN SZETO WAH & 3 OTHERS	Defendants/ Respondents

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

 

Coram: Hon Nazareth Atg CJHC, Liu and Leong, JJ.A. in Court

Date of Hearing: 15 July 1998

Date of Judgment: 15 July 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth Atg CJHC:

1. The appellant, Tse Jeekeen, appeals against the order of Cheung J made on 22 April 1998. By that order Cheung J dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order of a master striking out the appellant's original statement of claim by which he began these proceedings against the several defendants who appear to be political parties or leaders.

2. It is convenient to begin by setting out the material part of Cheung J's judgment in dismissing the appellant's appeal to him:

"In the Statement of Claim, it is pleaded that 'The Plaintiff hereby charges the Defendants slandering the Central Government and its leaders inciting the public against the Central Government and it leaders' attempt (including advocacy) to overthrow the Central Government and treasonable links to foreign powers. The relief sought by the Plaintiff is that :

(1) he asked the Court to annul the business or organisational registration of the 1st and 4th Defendants [i.e. HK Alliance in support of Patriotic Movement of China & its Chairman Mr Szeto Wah] and the 4th defendant, April 5 Action and its Leader, Mr Leung Kwok-hung;

(2) he asked the Court to order the Defendants to make a public apology to the Central Government; and

(3) payment of punitive compensation to the Plaintiff.

The action is obviously misconceived. Even if, for the purpose of an striking out application, the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim are treated as true, the proper person to lodge the complaint is not the Plaintiff. He has failed to show that he has the standing to bring these proceedings.

The remedies he asked for are likewise not available to him. The Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and the Master is correct in striking out the Statement of Claim. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs to the Defendants."

3. The appellant lodged his appeal by filing a notice of appeal in the usual way. He there raised numerous grounds, all of which, as far as I can see, he has repeated before us today. These I propose to adumbrate in the following way. He says that 160 nations and the United Nations do not question his standing and why should this Court do so. Likewise he says that FINA, which according to him the Federation of International Amateur Swimming, also does not challenge his standing. 168 Supreme Courts throughout the world have not questioned his standing and this Hong Kong court should not deviate. To dismiss without trial his action would discredit the Hong Kong Judiciary and Hong Kong courts in the world. The defendants should not challenge his standing which would be an admission of guilt. He has indicated that his claim concerns the US Government, the Australian Government and other Governments. He makes extravagant, to use a mild expression, assertions against George Bush, as being responsible for various matters, including the slaughter of 1.4 million chickens in Hong Kong to mention, but one allegation which gives the favour of a whole lot of others.

4. On the face of it, it is plain that Cheung J was right that the appellant has no standing to initiate this action on behalf of the Central Government as he purports to do. Nothing he has said to us today, particularly the matters I have just listed, meets that point. Certainly none of those matters would give him standing in this Court.

5. Accordingly, we do not have to concern ourselves with his Statement of Claim. Not that I can see that it in fact does disclose any cause of action having looked through it, but like the judge, I would confine myself to the matter of standing. On that there is no reason to doubt that the appellant has not shown any sort of standing. It is clear that there is no merit in the appeal and I would dismiss it.

Liu, J.A.:

6. I agree

Leong, J.A.:

7. I agree.

Nazareth, Atg CJHC:

8. The appeal is dismissed.

9. [Having heard counsel and the appellant]

10. The respondents are to have their costs of the appeal.

(G.P. Nazareth)	(B. Liu)	(Arthur Leong)
Atg Chief Judge High Court	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr Hin Lee Wong (M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) for the Respondents