Share
There has been an increasing trend for litigants in person in Hong Kong to pursue unmeritorious claims by issuing multiple claims (arising from similar sets of facts) in different forums against the same defendant and yet, there is limited remedy available to defendants /insurers when encountering these unwarranted claims. A Restrictive Proceedings Order (RPO) is a remedy that can assist in such circumstances.
Kennedys Liability Defence team in Hong Kong recently successfully obtained a RPO against a vexatious litigant in person in Chan Long Ning, Christine v Dickson Concepts (Retail) Limited (DCCJ 1660/2024).
How vexatious does a litigant in person have to be?
The plaintiff was a former employee of the defendant and complained that her employment was terminated after she was given an unfavourable appraisal during her probation period in March 2020. The plaintiff had issued claims against the defendant in the Labour Tribunal, lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission, and commenced a DCPI personal injuries proceedings in the District Court in 2022. The claims submitted by the plaintiff included allegations that she was being bullied and discriminated at work, causing her to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
The personal injuries claim was struck out in the District Court by Master Stanley Ho in November 2023 and the plaintiff did not appeal against this decision. Instead, she issued another set of civil proceedings based on the same allegations under the DCCJ action in 2024. The DCCJ action was similarly dismissed by Master Raymond Chu in November 2024. On this occasion, the plaintiff appealed against Master Chu’s decision.
It was at this juncture that the defendant made an application for a RPO against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s appeal was then dismissed by Deputy District Judge Isaac Chan in May 2025. Before the hearing for the RPO application in June 2025, the plaintiff had also emigrated to Canada but wrote to the Court (by post) stating that she would remain fully committed to the proceedings.
The Court considered that the plaintiff displayed many characteristics of a typical vexatious litigant, as follows:
- The plaintiff was unrepresented.
- Had instigated multiple proceedings at multiple levels of judiciary and quasi-judiciary bodies.
- Had not accepted various judgments and decisions made against her.
- Had not followed proper legal procedures.
- The plaintiff had repeatedly attempted to re-litigate the same matters despite those matters having been settled or determined.
Against this background, the Court granted the RPO against the plaintiff, prohibiting the plaintiff, without leave from the Court, from commencing any fresh proceedings in the District Court concerning any matters which have been touched upon in the Labour Tribunal proceedings, DCPI and DCCJ proceedings.
Comment
Whilst the scope of the RPO is limited, we consider this is a welcome decision from the District Court of Hong Kong to afford defendants/insurers some mechanism to prevent repeated claims from vexatious litigants in person.
Hong Kong