 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The position can be frustrating for the courts. For example, Mui Po Chu v Moi Oak-
wah, (Unreported) CACV 85 of 1998, 26 June 1998, was a case involving an appellant
said by Mortimer, V-P to be "regrettably well-known to this Court and to other courts
in this building", who had "brought a multiplicity of proceedings, most of which have
failed" but who seemed "unable to resist bringing proceedings". Although the Court
plainly thought her a vexatious litigant who had to be stopped, it observed that its
powers to take action were dependent upon application by others. As Godfrey JA put
it :-
"I must say with regret that, in my judgment, the time has come for steps to be taken which
will ensure that the defendant is not troubled with any further process by the plaintiff other
than in accordance with the provisions of our order of 24 February 1998. But it is not for us
to take steps to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Those matters must be left to the
defendant and/or to the Secretary of Justice."
The Department of Justice has informed the Working Party that between 1994 and
April 2003, the Attorney-General or Secretary for Justice made applications under
section 27 only twice. An order was not made on the first occasion because, despite
findings by various courts and tribunals that previous actions by the respondent
against her husband had been unmeritorious, the court was not satisfied that the only
live action was itself frivolous and vexatious or that the respondent would persist in
bringing further actions. A vexatious litigant order was made in the second case
where the respondent had issued a large number of identical and groundless writs
against different departments.
Notes
It is unclear what the learned judge had in mind as action to be taken by the defendant. See also
Chan Sai Lun Henry v Chan Wai Wah, Lily Ann, HCA014052/1999, 10 November 2000, where Yam
J was driven in his judgment to making a request that the Secretary for Justice consider applying to
the court for a vexatious litigant order against the defendant.
|
 |
|