如何處理無理纏擾訴訟人的濫用程序行為？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：黃 v 林 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：黃禮榮法官 - 判決日期：2025年7月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案呈請人（妻子）與答辯人（丈夫）於1990年結婚，育有四名成年子女。呈請人於2012年以分居為由呈請離婚。法庭於2013年頒下暫准離婚令，並於2021年頒下最終離婚令。雙方的附屬濟助訴訟長達七年，區域法院於2019年頒令出售答辯人控制的18個香港物業並攤分予雙方。答辯人對此判決不滿，多次申請上訴許可及暫緩執行，但均被駁回。由於答辯人持續不合作並濫用司法程序，呈請人於2025年1月28日申請限制申請令 (restriction order)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於答辯人是否濫用司法程序，其行為是否構成無理纏擾訴訟，以及法庭應否頒布限制申請令以制止其濫用行為。呈請人主張答辯人持續提出無理申請，旨在拖延執行附屬濟助命令。答辯人則未有律師代表，其行為顯示他拒絕接受法庭已作出的最終判決。 ### 判決理由 法官依據終審法院案例《吳逸之 對 上潤有限公司及另一人》[2025] 8 HKCFAR 1及實務指示11.3所確立的法律原則，審視答辯人的行為。法官認定答辯人是典型的「無理纏擾的訴訟人」，其行為模式包括對呈請人每項申請提出異議、對法庭命令提出上訴及暫緩執行申請，且理據重複且缺乏實質基礎。答辯人拒絕接受附屬濟助命令的最終性，其行為已超出合理訴訟策略範疇，構成嚴重濫用司法程序，旨在拖延執行命令。因此，法庭認為頒布限制申請令是相稱的對應措施。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用終審法院案例《吳逸之 對 上潤有限公司及另一人》[2025] 8 HKCFAR 1，該案例確立了限制申請令 (restriction order) 的發出條件及對濫用司法程序行為的定義。此外，亦提及實務指示11.3，旨在制止訴訟人濫用法庭程序。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准呈請人的申請，頒布限制申請令，禁止答辯人未經指定法官許可，在FCMC 16387/2012案件中提出任何進一步申請。答辯人提出的許可申請須以書面方式向黃禮榮法官提出。法庭亦命令答辯人須以彌償基礎支付呈請人本次申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院對濫用司法程序行為的嚴肅態度，特別是針對那些屢次提出無理申請以拖延執行法庭命令的訴訟人。法庭強調，此類行為不僅浪費司法資源，也嚴重損害了司法公正和效率。限制申請令的頒布，旨在有效遏制無理纏擾訴訟，確保法庭命令得以執行，並維護司法系統的完整性。 --- ### 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: Wong v Lam - Court: District Court - Judge: Judge Wong Lai Wing - Date of Judgment: 17 July 2025 ### Factual Background The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) married in 1990 and have four adult children. The petitioner filed for divorce in 2012 on grounds of separation. A decree nisi was granted in 2013, and a decree absolute in 2021. Ancillary relief proceedings lasted seven years, culminating in a 2019 District Court order for the sale and division of 18 Hong Kong properties controlled by the respondent. The respondent was dissatisfied with this judgment and repeatedly applied for leave to appeal and a stay of execution, all of which were dismissed. Due to the respondent's continuous non-cooperation and abuse of process, the petitioner applied for a restriction order on 28 January 2025. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the respondent had abused the court process, whether his conduct constituted vexatious litigation, and whether the court should issue a restriction order to prevent further abuse. The petitioner argued that the respondent continuously filed unmeritorious applications to delay the execution of the ancillary relief order. The respondent, unrepresented, demonstrated a refusal to accept the court's final judgments. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge applied legal principles from the Court of Final Appeal case, Wu Yat Chi v Top潤有限公司 and Another [2025] 8 HKCFAR 1, and Practice Direction 11.3. The judge found the respondent to be a typical "vexatious litigant" whose pattern of behaviour included objecting to every application by the petitioner, appealing every court order, and seeking stays of execution, often on repetitive and unsubstantiated grounds. The respondent's refusal to accept the finality of the ancillary relief order and his actions, which went beyond reasonable litigation strategy, constituted a severe abuse of process aimed at delaying the execution of orders. Therefore, the court deemed a restriction order a proportionate response. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedent cited was the Court of Final Appeal case, Wu Yat Chi v Top潤有限公司 and Another [2025] 8 HKCFAR 1, which established the conditions for issuing a restriction order and defined abusive litigation conduct. Practice Direction 11.3, aimed at curbing litigants' abuse of court processes, was also mentioned. ### Decision & Orders The court granted the petitioner's application, issuing a restriction order prohibiting the respondent from making any further applications in FCMC 16387/2012 without the permission of the designated judge. Any application for permission must be made in writing to Judge Wong Lai Wing. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner's costs for this application on an indemnity basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Hong Kong courts' serious stance against the abuse of process, particularly concerning litigants who repeatedly file unmeritorious applications to delay the execution of court orders. The court emphasized that such conduct not only wastes judicial resources but also severely undermines judicial fairness and efficiency. The issuance of a restriction order aims to effectively curb vexatious litigation, ensure the enforcement of court orders, and uphold the integrity of the judicial system. --- ### 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.