重複訴訟是否構成濫用法院程序？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：吳艷嫦及鄭容根 對 李雪芬主任及李日華律師 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：暫委法官歐陽桂如 - 判決日期：2011年12月23日 ### 案情摘要 第二原告人鄭先生於2003年被頒令破產，其退休金被停付。根據《退休金條例》第13(3)條，行政長官有權指示發放部分退休金予破產人及其家屬。鄭先生在破產期間多次申請發放退休金不果，導致他需領取綜援。其破產期於2007年自動解除，受託人職務亦於2008年解除。鄭先生曾就退休金事宜向被告人及其他人提出三宗訴訟（DCCJ4838/2007、HCA1189/2007、DCCJ2127/2009），但均被剔除。本案中，鄭先生與其妻吳女士再次起訴兩名被告人，指控他們失職、誣陷及惡意中傷，並要求賠償。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告人的申索是否構成濫用法院程序 (abuse of process) 及是否應被剔除。被告人申請剔除原告人的申索陳述書 (statement of claim)，理由是申索沒有披露合理的訴訟因由 (reasonable cause of action)、屬瑣屑無聊 (frivolous)、無理纏擾 (vexatious) 及濫用法院程序。第一被告人律政司更申請頒發限制程序令 (restraint order)，以禁止原告人再次就已審結的事項提起訴訟。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，原告人的申索構成濫用法院程序。首先，第一原告人吳女士與被告人之間沒有法律關係，其申索沒有事實基礎，亦未披露任何訴因。其次，第二原告人鄭先生的申索與其先前已被剔除的三宗案件所持理由如出一轍，違反了「一案不能兩審」的既判案件原則 (res judicata)。鄭先生指控被告人誣陷、惡意中傷及捏造證據，但未能提供具體內容或事實基礎，這些指控被視為瑣屑無聊及無理纏擾。此外，第二被告人作為破產案受託人的職務已獲解除，並根據《破產條例》第94(3)條免除所有法律責任，除非證明其命令是藉欺詐獲得，而原告人並無此證明。法庭認為原告人的申索陳述書有無法補救的缺陷，因此予以剔除。鑑於鄭先生屢次就同一事實基礎提起訴訟，法庭亦頒發限制程序令。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Yat Tung Investment Co. Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd & Another [1975] AC 581, 590，以支持「一案不能兩審」的法律原則。此外，法庭亦參考了終審法院在吳逸之對上潤有限公司及另一答辯人一案中，對無理纏擾申索人特徵的闡述，以及高等法院法官潘兆初在郭錦常訴香港特別行政區政府（「官方」），HCA 271/2007判詞中關於法院固有司法管轄權的說明。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭命令剔除第一及第二原告人針對兩名被告人發出的傳訊令狀及申索陳述書，理由是沒有披露合理的訴訟因由、屬瑣屑無聊及無理纏擾，以及濫用法院程序。法庭同時頒發限制程序令，禁止第一及/或第二原告人未經原訟法庭許可，不得就DCCJ4838/2007、HCA1189/2007及DCCJ2127/2009等法律程序相關事宜，在高等法院或區域法院展開任何新的法律程序。原告人須向第一被告人支付訟費55,000元，向第二被告人支付51,687元。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了法院在處理濫用程序案件時的堅定立場，特別是針對屢次就相同或類似爭議提起訴訟的當事人。判決強調了既判案件原則的重要性，並闡明了法院在固有司法管轄權下頒發限制程序令的權力，以防止司法程序被濫用。這對那些試圖透過重複訴訟來纏擾對方的當事人發出了明確的警告。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Ng Yim Sheung and Cheng Yung Kun v Li Suet Fan and Li Yat Wah - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Her Honour Judge Au Yeung Kwai Yu, Acting Judge of the Court of First Instance - Date of Judgment: 23 December 2011 ### Factual Background The second plaintiff, Mr. Cheng, was adjudicated bankrupt in 2003, leading to the suspension of his pension payments. Under section 13(3) of the Pensions Ordinance, the Chief Executive has the power to direct payment of part of the pension to the bankrupt and his family. Mr. Cheng repeatedly applied for pension payments during his bankruptcy but was unsuccessful, forcing him to rely on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). His bankruptcy was automatically discharged in 2007, and the trustees' duties were discharged in 2008. Mr. Cheng had previously initiated three lawsuits (DCCJ4838/2007, HCA1189/2007, DCCJ2127/2009) against the defendants and others regarding his pension, all of which were struck out. In the present case, Mr. Cheng and his wife, Ms. Ng, sued the two defendants again, alleging dereliction of duty, malicious prosecution, and defamation, seeking compensation. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiffs' claim constituted an abuse of process and should be struck out. The defendants applied to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The first defendant, represented by the Department of Justice, further applied for a restraint order to prevent the plaintiffs from initiating new proceedings on matters already adjudicated. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claim constituted an abuse of process. Firstly, the first plaintiff, Ms. Ng, had no legal relationship with the defendants, and her claim lacked factual basis and disclosed no cause of action. Secondly, the second plaintiff, Mr. Cheng's claim was identical to the reasons he advanced in three previous cases that had been struck out, violating the principle of res judicata (a matter already judged). Mr. Cheng's allegations of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fabrication of evidence lacked specific content or factual basis and were deemed frivolous and vexatious. Furthermore, the second defendant's duties as a bankruptcy trustee had been discharged, and she was released from all liabilities under section 94(3) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, as there was no proof that the discharge order was obtained by fraud. The court found the plaintiffs' statement of claim to have incurable defects and struck it out. Given Mr. Cheng's repeated initiation of lawsuits based on the same factual grounds, the court also issued a restraint order. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited Yat Tung Investment Co. Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd & Another [1975] AC 581, 590, to support the principle of res judicata. The court also referred to the Court of Final Appeal's description of characteristics of vexatious litigants in the case of Ng Yat Chi v Upper Rich Co Ltd and Another, and the High Court Judge Poon Shiu Chor's judgment in Kwok Kam Cheong v Government of the HKSAR (HCA 271/2007) regarding the court's inherent jurisdiction. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered the striking out of the writ of summons and statement of claim issued by the first and second plaintiffs against the two defendants, on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of process. A restraint order was also issued, prohibiting the first and/or second plaintiffs from initiating any new legal proceedings in the High Court or District Court without leave of the Court of First Instance, concerning matters related to DCCJ4838/2007, HCA1189/2007, and DCCJ2127/2009. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of HK$55,000 to the first defendant and HK$51,687 to the second defendant. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the court's firm stance against abuse of process, particularly concerning litigants who repeatedly bring actions on the same or similar disputes. It underscores the importance of the res judicata principle and clarifies the court's power under its inherent jurisdiction to issue restraint orders to prevent the misuse of judicial procedures. This serves as a clear warning to litigants attempting to harass opponents through repetitive litigation. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.