Unreasonable Litigants in Hong Kong

Mr Anthony Tin Hang CHAU Mocked By His Honour Judge Eddie Yip 主控官周天行俾法官葉佐文串爆咗  https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20210222/B2U237DT7RF3ZKACHNQKEF5YLI/ 控方由主理國安法案件的高級助理刑事檢控專員周天行代表。甫開庭，辯方投訴，直至上星期五黃昏5時至6時才收到控方傳真修訂版本案情。法官葉佐文質問主控官周天行為何這麼遲。周稱修改純粹涉及「少少字眼」，法官反駁謂：「我哋唔係所有嘢都係字嚟㗎咩？」葉官又質疑控方在上周工作時間後才發送修改文件，問他知否辯方收到文件後仍要與證人開會，又質疑周謂：「你有冇做過辯方㗎？」、「你唔會收埋喺床下底自己改㗎嘛？」。法官亦透露，書記已多次催促控方，但就連法官本人也是到上周很遲時間才收到修訂文件，要犧牲放假私人時間處理，需要改動私人事務安排。周向法庭致歉，承認確是遲交文件。案件編號：DCCC888/19、11、734/20

Too Ka Man (杜家文) "Dishonest, Evasive, Recklessly Irresponsible and Wholly Unreliable" - Says Court - [2019] HKDC 971 CHAN CHAM PONG CEDRIC (陳湛邦) v TOO KA MAN (杜家文) & MANSON WATER AND ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED (文信水電裝修工程有限公司) - [2019] HKDC 971 - Date of Judgment - 26 July 2019 https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=123352&currpage=T The Evidence of D1 (the 3rd Witness) 15.  The 3rd witness was D1.  He struck me as a dishonest, evasive, recklessly irresponsible and wholly unreliable witness.  I find the following non-exhaustive features in D1’s evidence wholly unacceptable: - (1)  D1’s witness statement, dated 13 December 2017, was professionally prepared with the assistance of lawyers.  D1 signed a statement of truth verifying its contents as true.  During D1’s examination-in-chief, D1 corrected just one word in this witness statement and confirmed the rest of its contents as true.  When cross-examined, however, D1 changed his evidence and said 8 ou

主控大律師伍家聰 Prosecuting Counsel Simon K C Ng (Barrister) 俾法官沈小民寸 https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20210219/JOB3V7RYRJDLLFQZQF3LWRMN4E/ 沈官更一度向主控大律師伍家聰稱：「『共謀者原則』唔係咁解你返去自己諗清楚。」【案件編號：DCCC908、918/19】10.1串謀暴動案六男女全部脫罪

Convicted Criminal Candy Fong (the Barrister) Lost Her Appeal - 已被定罪罪犯方也方大律師上訴失敗 https://lawyersinhk.blogspot.com/2020/12/convicted-criminal-barrister-candy-fong-lost-her-appeal-as-she-should.html HKSAR v. FONG E-FONG CANDY -  HCMA 108/2020 - ​[2020] HKCFI 3133 //The appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of Common Assault and fined HK$3,000.  The appellant appeals against her conviction.// //On appeal, the appellant made this court sit through repeated viewing of the CCTV footage alleging that she had been kicked.  I could not see that she was kicked.// //... my observation from having viewed the CCTV footage many times was that it can be seen from the footage that the appellant had intentionally grabbed hold of PW2 by putting her arm around the neck of PW2 in order to stop the wheelchair from moving and in order to get close to him in order to speak to him.  I therefore find that the conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and therefore the appeal is dismissed.//

Yiu Shing Yin "An Evasive Dishonest Liar", Says Court -  https://defamation.law.blog/2019/03/23/defence-of-consent-in-hong-kong-defamation-law/ Yiu Shing Yin (姚盛賢) v Kwok Yik Ho (郭奕河) & Cheng Siu Yung (鄭少容) - [2018] HKDC 514 (DCCJ 4437 / 2016) -  https://defenceofconsent.blogspot.com/2020/12/defence-of-consent-in-hong-kong.html https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=115106&currpage=T 9.   Mr Yiu gave evidence first.  I observed his demeanour, looked at the contemporaneous documents, and considered the probabilities of his evidence.  I found Mr Yiu to be an evasive dishonest liar whose evidence, in so far as it was self-serving, was wholly unreliable, plainly ludicrous in certain parts, and rejected by me as false. 10.   The following are  some  examples of how  “plainly ludicrous”  certain parts of Mr Yiu’s evidence really were: -    (1)  Mr Yiu alleged under cross-examination by Mr Damian Wong, Counsel for Mr and Mrs Kwok, that he intended to at

Barrister Kerby Lau of Des Voeux Chambers (DVC) “unhelpful”, says [2018] HKCA 403 (Cheung, Yuen and Kwan JJA) http://gettingjusticeinhongkong.blogspot.com/2019/05/barrister-chua-guan-hock-sc-and-barrister-kerby-lau-unhelpful-says-the-hong-kong-court-of-appeal.html https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=116701&currpage=T 8.   The defendant’s counsel cited a total of 38 cases in this application .  As stated in Practice Direction 2.1 §3(e), the skeleton submissions “should direct at helping the Court to determine whether grounds have been made out for the appeal to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal”.   It is unhelpful to load the submissions with copious authorities making more or less the same point in a number of instances . Written submissions by Barristers Mr Chua Guan Hock SC and Mr Kerby Lau, instructed by K B Chau & Co Solicitors, for the Defendant (Applicant)

Solicitor Au Wing Lun William - N onsensical, Defies Common Sense, The Most Absurd Submission Ever Heard. Appalling.  Abuse of Process - 區穎麟律師知唔知醜㗎！ http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/719.html AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007) Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the

Sunny Tadjudin's Application Unnecessary Oppressive and Unreasonable - Says Hong Kong Deputy High Court Judge Mimmie Chan - [2011] HKCFI 1874 - HCA 322/2008 - SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfi/2011/1874 Costs 112. Although the subject applications contain a total of 40 requests for discovery and 63 requests for particulars, I have only made orders for 10 items for discovery and 5 items for particulars. The requests for particulars are mostly for evidence, or amount to interrogatories for information. The majority of the requests for discovery and particulars have been found to be unnecessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. But for the last minute amendments made in the course of the hearing to confine the discovery exercise to “policy” or “methodology” documents, or documents which directly contain the information sought, nearly all the requests would have been disallowed due to the un