LEE YIU KEI v. HONG KONG LAND LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 1097/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1097 OF 2014

____________________

____________

HCMP 1913/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1913 OF 2014

____________

____________

(Heard together)

_____________

DECISION
_____________

1.  The background of the plaintiffs’ claims has been set out in my Reasons for Decisions dated 21 October 2014 in HCMP 1881/2014, 1882/2014 and 2526/2014, and I do not want to repeat the same here.

2.  Madam Leung Kwai Ling Loretta (“Madam Leung”) and Mr Lee Yiu Kei (“Mr Lee”) had issued various legal proceedings against different parties relating to the redevelopment of the former Lai Sing Court in Tai Hang Road.  All of these claims had been dismissed by the courts, and Madam Leung and Mr Lee are subject to various RAOs and RPOs made by the courts against them.

3.  In these two actions, I have to deal with similar claims made by both Madam Leung and Mr Lee in HCA 1097/2014 and Mr Lee alone in HCA 1097/2014.  The claim of Madam Leung in HCA 1097/2014 was instituted by her in breach of the RPO made by DHCJ M Ng, and so the learned judge had earlier dismissed Madam Leung’s claim in HCA 1097/2014.

4.  I myself had made RAO and RPO against Mr Lee on 15 October 2014 in HCMP 1881/2014.  As the designated judge, Mr Lee’s claims in these two actions were referred to me for consideration.

5.  Since Mr Lee’s claims in these two actions were commenced by him before the making of the RAO and RPO against him on 15 October 2014, there was then no order prohibiting Mr Lee from commencing these two actions.  However, since Mr Lee’s claims in these two actions are similar to the numerous claims dismissed by the courts in the past, I decided to hold a hearing for Mr Lee to show cause as to why the court should not, on its own motion, dismiss his claims in these actions.

6.  In my judgment, it is clear that Mr Lee’s claims in these actions are re-litigation of the various claims dismissed by the courts in the past.  Although Mr Lee might not be a party to all the dismissed actions, Mr Lee’s claims in these two actions cover issues or facts which are clearly part of the subject matter of all the dismissed actions and therefore could have been raised then.  In such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process to allow Mr Lee to proceed with his claims, which are clearly collateral attacks by him to re-open matters already determined in the earlier actions. Hence, his claims in these two actions should be dismissed and I therefore so order.