限制程序令撤銷的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：吳艷嫦 及 鄭根容 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：歐陽桂如法官 - 判決日期：2022年10月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於2011年12月23日法庭對第二原告人鄭根容先生及其太太發出的限制程序令 (restrictive proceedings order)。自該命令發出以來，鄭先生曾至少五次申請許可發出新程序，但均被法庭拒絕。本次傳票申請，鄭先生要求撤銷該限制程序令，理由是他遭受受託人李日華律師誣蔑，並重複提及破產期間退休金被扣押一事。然而，鄭先生未能提供其他實質內容解釋撤銷申請的理由。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於第二原告人鄭根容先生是否有充分理由撤銷已生效長達十一年的限制程序令 (restrictive proceedings order)。法庭需要審視鄭先生提出的理由，包括其聲稱遭受誣蔑及退休金被扣押等，以判斷這些理由是否構成撤銷命令的重大情況轉變。 ### 判決理由 法官分析指，鄭先生的申請理由，即遭受誣蔑和退休金被扣押，並非撤銷限制程序令的充分原因。法庭注意到，該命令已生效十一年，期間鄭先生五次申請發出新程序均被拒絕，這證明該命令有效阻止了無理及重複的訴訟。法官認為鄭先生未能提供任何證據顯示有重大情況轉變 (material change of circumstances)，足以支持撤銷該限制程序令。因此，法庭維持該命令的有效性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了第二原告人鄭根容先生撤銷限制程序令的傳票申請。該限制程序令仍然有效。法庭命令鄭先生支付訟費港幣15,000元，費用將以簡易評定程序 (summary assessment) 評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了限制程序令在防止濫用訴訟程序方面的有效性。法庭強調，除非有重大情況轉變，否則已生效的限制程序令不會輕易被撤銷。申請人必須提供實質證據證明撤銷的必要性，僅憑個人感受或與命令無直接關聯的事件不足以構成撤銷理由。 --- ### 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 Yin Sheung & Cheng Kan Yung v Li Suet Fan & Li Yat Wah - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Au Yeung J - Date of Judgment: 12 October 2022 ### Factual Background This case originated from a restrictive proceedings order issued by the court on 23 December 2011 against the 2nd Plaintiff, Mr. Cheng Kan Yung, and his wife. Since the order was made, Mr. Cheng had applied for leave to commence new proceedings at least five times, all of which were refused by the court. In the current summons application, Mr. Cheng sought to discharge this restrictive proceedings order, citing defamation by his trustee, Mr. Li Yat Wah, and repeatedly mentioning the seizure of his pension during bankruptcy. However, Mr. Cheng provided no other substantive reasons for his application. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the 2nd Plaintiff, Mr. Cheng Kan Yung, had sufficient grounds to discharge a restrictive proceedings order that had been in effect for eleven years. The court needed to assess Mr. Cheng's stated reasons, including his claims of defamation and pension seizure, to determine if these constituted a material change of circumstances warranting the discharge of the order. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found that Mr. Cheng's reasons for the application, namely alleged defamation and pension seizure, were not sufficient grounds to discharge the restrictive proceedings order. The court noted that the order had been in force for eleven years, during which Mr. Cheng's five applications for new proceedings were all refused, demonstrating the order's effectiveness in preventing vexatious and repetitive litigation. The judge concluded that Mr. Cheng failed to provide any evidence of a material change of circumstances that would justify discharging the order. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the order. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court refused the 2nd Plaintiff Mr. Cheng Kan Yung's summons application to discharge the restrictive proceedings order. The restrictive proceedings order remains in effect. The court ordered Mr. Cheng to pay costs of HK$15,000, to be assessed by summary assessment. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the effectiveness of restrictive proceedings orders in preventing abuse of process. The court emphasized that an existing restrictive proceedings order will not be easily discharged unless there is a material change of circumstances. Applicants must provide substantive evidence to justify the discharge; personal feelings or events not directly related to the order are insufficient grounds. --- ### 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.