申索是否超越時效及濫用法律程序？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：鍾玲 對 簡兆祺 (工聯會尚德邨區議員) 及 其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：梁俊文法官 - 判決日期：2024年10月30日 ### 案情摘要 原告鍾女士自2003年起租住第三被告香港房屋委員會（房委會）轄下單位。2016年，她入稟區域法院控告第一被告簡先生（時任區議員）性滋擾，該案最終以鍾女士刊登道歉啟事並撤銷申索告終。2023年11月，鍾女士再次入稟高等法院，針對簡先生、第二被告工聯會（簡先生所屬）及房委會提出申索，指控簡先生性滋擾、工聯會包庇、房委會串謀陷害導致她精神受創及失去安定居所。聆案官早前已剔除鍾女士針對三名被告的申索並撤銷訴訟，鍾女士不服提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告鍾女士針對三名被告的申索是否構成合理的訴訟因由（reasonable cause of action）、是否屬於惡意中傷、瑣屑無聊或無理纏擾（scandalous, frivolous or vexatious），以及是否濫用法律程序（abuse of process）。被告方認為原告的申索已超越訴訟時效（limitation period），且部分指控已在先前的訴訟中和解解決。原告則聲稱先前的和解是在受脅迫下達成，並要求恢復訴訟。 ### 判決理由 法官維持聆案官的決定，認為原告針對簡先生的申索，因其已在先前的區域法院訴訟中和解並撤銷，且原告未能提供客觀證據證明和解是在受脅迫下達成，故屬濫用法律程序。此外，所有申索均已超越《時效條例》（Limitation Ordinance）規定的人身傷亡3年及侵權6年的訴訟時效。針對工聯會和房委會的申索，法官認為原告未能確立兩者在法律上須為簡先生的行為負責，且申索同樣超越時效，並缺乏合理基礎及詳情。因此，原告的申索未能披露合理訴訟因由，屬惡意中傷、瑣屑無聊及濫用法律程序。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《高等法院規則》（Rules of the High Court）第18號命令第19條規則，以及法庭的固有管轄權（inherent jurisdiction）來剔除狀書。此外，法官參考了Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489案所訂立的接納新證據的先決條件，並引用吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人 HCA 1164/2011案中解釋的剔除狀書的相關法律原則。本案亦依據《時效條例》處理訴訟時限問題。 ### 裁決與命令 法官撤銷原告鍾女士的上訴，維持聆案官剔除原告針對簡先生、工聯會及房委會的申索並撤銷訴訟的決定。原告須支付簡先生和工聯會港幣35,000元訟費，以及房委會港幣26,000元訟費，並須於2024年11月15日或之前支付，訟費以彌償標準（indemnity basis）評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了法庭在處理惡意中傷、瑣屑無聊或無理纏擾以及濫用法律程序的訴訟時，有權行使固有管轄權及《高等法院規則》賦予的權力剔除申索。同時，強調了訴訟時效的重要性，即使原告聲稱受脅迫，也需提供客觀證據支持。此外，法庭對損害賠償申索的詳情和計算有嚴格要求，原告必須在狀書中列明。 --- ### 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: Chung Ling v Kan Siu Kei (FTU Sheung Tak Estate District Councillor) and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Mr Justice Leung - Date of Judgment: 30 October 2024 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Ms. Chung, has been a tenant of a unit under the third defendant, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA), since 2003. In 2016, she filed a claim in the District Court against the first defendant, Mr. Kan (then a District Councillor), alleging sexual harassment. That case concluded with Ms. Chung publishing an apology and withdrawing her claim. In November 2023, Ms. Chung initiated new proceedings in the High Court against Mr. Kan, the second defendant, the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU, Mr. Kan's affiliation), and the HA, alleging sexual harassment by Mr. Kan, cover-up by the FTU, and a conspiracy by the HA that caused her mental distress and loss of stable housing. The Master had previously struck out Ms. Chung's claims against the three defendants and dismissed the action, which Ms. Chung appealed. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case were whether the plaintiff Ms. Chung's claims against the three defendants disclosed a reasonable cause of action, whether they were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and whether they constituted an abuse of process. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the limitation period and that some allegations had been resolved by settlement in previous litigation. The plaintiff contended that the prior settlement was made under duress and sought to revive the action. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge upheld the Master's decision, finding that the plaintiff's claims against Mr. Kan were an abuse of process, as they had been settled and withdrawn in previous District Court proceedings, and the plaintiff failed to provide objective evidence that the settlement was made under duress. Furthermore, all claims were time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance, which sets a 3-year limit for personal injury actions and a 6-year limit for tortious claims. Regarding the claims against the FTU and the HA, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a legal basis for their liability for Mr. Kan's alleged actions, and these claims were also time-barred, lacking reasonable foundation and particulars. Therefore, the plaintiff's claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court and the court's inherent jurisdiction for striking out pleadings. The judge referred to the three preconditions for admitting new evidence set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, and the legal principles for striking out pleadings explained in HCA 1164/2011, Ng Yin Sheung and Another v Lee Suet Fan and Another. The Limitation Ordinance was also applied to address the time-bar issue. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the plaintiff Ms. Chung's appeal, affirming the Master's decision to strike out her claims against Mr. Kan, the FTU, and the HA, and to dismiss the action. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of HK$35,000 to Mr. Kan and the FTU, and HK$26,000 to the HA, to be paid on or before 15 November 2024. The costs were assessed on an indemnity basis. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the court's power, under its inherent jurisdiction and the Rules of the High Court, to strike out claims that are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It underscores the importance of limitation periods, requiring objective evidence to support claims of duress in settlement. Furthermore, the judgment highlights strict requirements for particulars and calculations in damages claims, which must be clearly set out in the pleadings. --- ### 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.