Hong Kong’s District Court (the "Court") in 庄裕安 v 关淑馨及另二人  HKDC 1589 struck out the Applicant's discrimination claim against the Respondents, who were the judges who dismissed the Applicant's appeal in a Court of Appeal case CACV 185/2017. The Court also gave a Restricted Proceedings Order against the Applicant.
The hearing of CACV 185/2017 was scheduled on 1 June 2018, but the Applicant was unable to attend the hearing due to his sickness. The Respondents dismissed the Applicant's appeal in the absence of the Applicant. The Applicant claimed that the Respondents discriminated him on the ground of his disability by refusing to adjourn the hearing.
For the present case, the Respondents applied for a striking-out order while the Applicant submitted an application to appoint an amicus curiae and an application to list the Judiciary as a respondent.
The Court struck out the Applicant's claim.
The Court held that there was no reasonable cause of action in the Applicant's claim as it was inconsistent with the immunity from legal action provided by Article 85 of the Basic Law to the members of the judiciary in the performance of their judicial functions.
It is also impossible for the Applicant to pass the "but for" test used in the determination of whether there is "discrimination". The reason why the Respondents refused to adjourn the hearing was that they did not accept the Applicant's reason for his failure to attend the hearing. The Applicant claimed that he was suffering from a stomach ache, however, according to the medical certificate he was diagnosed as suffering from upper respiratory tract infection. Therefore, the Court held that the Respondents' refusal to adjourn the hearing was totally unrelated to the Applicant's alleged disability. The Applicant's claim was vexatious and was an abuse of the court's process.
The Court also refused the Applicant's applications to appoint an amicus curiae and to list the Judiciary as a respondent.
The Court awarded costs to the Respondents on an indemnity basis.
Finally, the Court also imposed a Restricted Proceedings Order on the Applicant. Given that the Applicant has also issued unmeritorious legal proceedings against judges before, the Court was of the view that he has abused and is likely to continue abusing the court's process. The Applicant was prohibited from initiating new legal action against judges or members of the judiciary without the leave of the Court.
The Chinese judgment available at: