Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In The High Court of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance
In The High Court of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance
HCA1466/2011 B
B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
C
C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE D
D
ACTION NO. 1466 OF 2011
E
E ------------------------
F
F BETWEEN
G
LAU TAT WAI (劉達偉) Plaintiff G
H
H and
I
I YIP LAI KUEN JOEY (葉麗娟) Defendant
J
J -------------------------
K
Before : Hon Anthony Chan J in Court K
M
------------------------ M
JUDGMENT
------------------------
N
N
1. This is a sad case. At the same time, the wrongs committed by the O
O
defendant (“Yip”) against the plaintiff (“Lau”) over the course of nearly 6
P
P years have made a misery of a young man’s life and, by any standard, are
outrageous. Q
Q
R
R 2. Yip failed to appear at the trial. However, shortly before it began, a
written submission was filed by Yip. It is a 3 page document which S
S
appears to have been prepared by a person with some legal training. It
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
V
V
A
A
numbers and alias for the purpose. The volume of such activities is B
B
staggering. On several occasions, Yip made 120 calls and sent 80 SMS
C
C messages in 1 hour to Lau’s mobile phone and his company line.
D
D
8. Unwelcomed phone calls were also made by Yip to Lau’s friends and
E
E colleagues, including Lau’s superior. The purpose of such calls was to
force Lau to accede to her wishes. The situation was such that in October F
F
2008 Lau had to resign from his job (at “ASM”) due to the disturbance
G
G caused by Yip.
H
H
9. In September 2008, Yip hired a private detective to conduct
I
I surveillance on Lau. From then on, Yip was able to monitor Lau’s
movement, causing him great distress. In that month, she suddenly J
J
appeared in Sai Kung where Lau was hiking with his colleagues and
K
K warned Lau’s female colleagues not to have a romantic relationship with
him. In December 2008, Yip appeared uninvited on a plane where Lau L
L
was returning with his family from a trip to Shanghai. Clearly, Yip had
M
M
been stalking Lau.
N
N
10.In January 2009, Lau managed to find a new job with a chemical
O
O company (“Denka”). From January to May 2009, Lau moved away from
his family to try to avoid Yip’s harassment. P
P
Q
Q 11.In around May 2009, Yip created a false recruitment advertisement of
Denka on the internet. As a result, numerous calls from job applicants R
R
were received causing much nuisance to Lau’s employer and
S
S embarrassment to him.
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
12.In October 2009, Yip purchased and moved into a flat (“Room 506”) B
B
which was in the same building where Lau was residing with his parents.
C
C Once there, Yip was able to monitor the movement of Lau via the CCTV
installed at the building. She would appear uninvited and follow Lau to D
D
work in the morning.
E
E
13.At about that time, Yip rented a parking space at the building in the F
F
name of Lau and provided his contact number to the management. As a
G
G result, numerous calls were received by Lau from the management chasing
him for outstanding rental payments. Lau was forced to cancel his H
H
telephone number to avoid the nuisance.
I
I
14.In February 2010, Yip demanded that Lau should visit Japan with her, J
J
promising that she would terminate their relationship and cease further
K
K harassment after the trip. With reluctance, Lau acceded to Yip’s demand
but she failed to live up to her promise. L
L
M
M 15.In March 2010, Lau was forced to resign from Denka due to the
continuous disturbance caused to his employer by Yip. N
N
O
O 16.In May 2010, whilst Lau was in Japan looking for a job, Yip made use
of the personal information obtained via unauthorized access to Lau’s P
P
electronic mail accounts to circulate missing person notices about him on
Q
Q various discussion forums on the internet.
R
R
17.Further, Yip continued to bombard him with phone calls to his
S
S workplace (Lau had 3 casual jobs in Japan from July 2010 to January
2011) and with text messages to his mobile phone. T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
21.In March 2011, Yip made a false report to the police accusing Lau of J
J
theft of her properties. Consequently, Lau was arrested by the police at the
K
K airport when he returned to Hong Kong on 6 April 2011.
L
L
22.Between March and April 2011, whilst he was away from Hong Kong,
M
M no less than 6 of Lau’s friends received many phone calls from a finance
company falsely alleging that they had guaranteed certain loan granted to N
N
Lau and asking for Lau’s whereabouts. Those calls duly ceased when Lau
O
O returned to Hong Kong.
P
P
23.In order to force Lau to return to Hong Kong, Yip resorted to tactics
Q
Q widely used by debt collectors. On 3 occasions, namely, 21 March, 4
April and 30 May 2011 red paint was splashed on the iron grille of Lau’s R
R
home. Subsequently, HK$5,000 was paid to him by Yip as compensation
S
S for the damage.
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
24.On 2 April 2011, Yip caused someone to splatter red paint on the back B
B
of Lau’s mother, who was traumatised by the experience.
C
C
25.On 4 April 2011, black paint was splashed on the iron grille of Lau’s D
D
grandmother’s home.
E
E
26.On the next day, Yip made various threats to Lau via the internet that if F
F
he did not return to Hong Kong his parents would be harmed. Further
G
G threat against the safety of Lau’s parents was made on 9 April 2011.
H
H
27.On 17 April 2011, posters containing highly offensive remarks about
I
I Lau were inserted into the letter boxes of his neighbours. A statement of
apology was later caused to be inserted into the same letter boxes by Yip at J
J
Lau’s request.
K
K
29.After having sold Room 506 in March 2011, on 16 May 2011 Yip N
N
purchased another unit at the same building (Room 105) and continued to
O
O live there.
P
P
30.On 24 May 2011, red paint was splashed on the iron grille of a rented
Q
Q flat in Shenzhen where Lau and his mother were seeking refuge in order to
avoid Yip. R
R
S
S 31.On 25 May 2011, Yip obtained a default judgment for HK$4,000
against Lau from the Small Claims Tribunal based on a false claim. With T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
that judgment, she obtained a garnishee order against Lau in July 2011 B
B
resulting in the loss of HK$4,073 on his part.
C
C
32.In June and July 2011, Lau again stayed away from his family to avoid D
D
Yip.
E
E
33.Lau managed to find a new job in Hong Kong in July 2011. However, F
F
on 18 August 2011, Yip rang him at his office and demanded his
G
G resignation from the job. She threatened that she would continue to seek
revenge against him. H
H
I
I 34.On the next day, Yip called again and demanded that Lau either
returned to her or she would continue with her vengeance. She said that J
J
some people from the Mainland would be looking for him.
K
K
37.When he was asked how this whole affair has affected him, Lau said R
R
that his career has been badly affected due to the inability to stay with his
S
S job. Even when he was in Japan, he could not escape from Yip because
she had obtained his phone number. Whilst he was in the Mainland, Yip T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
J
family. J
K
K 39.Lau is suffering from insomnia. When he hears the ringing of the
phone, he would fear that the caller might be Yip. He also fears that she L
L
might appear uninvited.
M
M
40.I believe that Mr Luk, who appeared for Lau, has summarised these N
N
affairs correctly by submitting that Yip has for the past 6 years sabotaged
O
O the life of this young man.
P
P
41.Last but not least, Mr Luk is clearly right in submitting that the wrongs
Q
Q committed by Yip were premeditated and with the help of third parties.
R
R
42.I now deal with the causes of action advanced on behalf of Lau.
S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
Tort of intimidation B
B
45.Further, I also accept that the threats made by Yip in respect of Lau’s K
K
safety, the safety of his parents and the creation of the derogatory posters
L
L all had the effect of forcing Lau to maintain contact with her. Each such
act constituted an intimidation. M
M
N
N 46.Furthermore, the evidence is that Lau continued to answer the
unwelcomed phone calls from Yip because if he failed to do so she would O
O
be ringing his colleagues. Such behaviours on Yip’s part also constituted
P
P intimidations.
Q
Q
47.As regards the damage to Lau, although it has been opined by the
R
R learned authors of Street on Torts that the kind of damage which can
ground this cause of action is not entirely clear, I see no difficulty in this S
S
1
The incident of 30 May 2011 is excluded because it is not clear from the evidence whether T
T it played a part in forcing Lau to return to Hong Kong from Japan.
U
U
V
V
A
A
case. Lau was clearly forced to see and/or listen to Yip when it was the B
B
last thing he wanted to do. These were no doubt disturbing, if not
C
C traumatic, experience for him. There is evidence on how such experience
has adversely affected Lau, including the need to consult a psychologist. I D
D
hold that the mental distress caused to Lau is sufficient to ground this
E
E
cause of action.
F
F
Private nuisance
G
G
48.Private nuisance is defined in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 18th edn, p
H
H 712 as:
I
I
“…unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of
land, or some right over, or in connection with it. It has been J
J said that the tort takes three forms: encroachment on a
neighbour’s land; direct physical injury to the land; or
interference with the enjoyment of the land.” K
K
L
L
49.I agree with Mr Luk that the incessant phone calls made to Lau’s
offices and home and the splashing of paint at his home amounted to M
M
interference with the enjoyment of those premises by Lau. However, I N
N
must reject this cause of action because it has not been demonstrated that
O
O Lau has any or any sufficient interest in those premises.
P
P
50.In Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727, harassment by telephone calls
was held to be an actionable interference with an 18 year old girl’s Q
Q
ordinary and reasonable use and enjoyment of her home where she was R
R
lawfully present as a licensee. It was also held that “substantial
S
S occupation” was enough to found an action in private nuisance. That
decision was overruled by the House of Lords which held that a plaintiff T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
52.This court is of course bound by Ng Hoi Sze and this cause of action H
H
must fail.
I
I
Trespass to goods J
J
P
P 55.The evidence is that the flat where Lau was residing with his parents
was jointly owned by the latter. At the highest, Lau was a licensee. I do Q
Q
not see how he was in possession of the iron grille at the material times.
R
R This cause of action must also fail.
S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
Tort of harassment B
B
56.I believe that the current state of the law in Hong Kong has been C
C
accurately summarised by the learned author of Tort Law in Hong Kong,
D
D 3rd edn, at p 717-719:
E
E
“(2) In jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, where there is no
general protection from harassment legislation as there is in F
F the UK, and where a common law tort of harassment has
yet to develop (see eg Chang Ming Fang Jacqueline v
Zhang Zi Qiang (unrep., HCA 2714/2006, [2009] HKEC G
G
1411)),
… H
H
(4) The High Court of Singapore has now recognised a
I
I common law tort of harassment (see Malcomson v Mehta
[2001] 4 SLR 454). In Hong Kong, that stage has not been
reached. In Etacol (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sinomast Ltd [2006] J
J 4 HKC 572 (11.3 above), a case concerning threats and
intimidation in the course of debt collection, Deputy Judge
Carlson (in Chambers) granted summary judgment to the K
K
plaintiffs for distress suffered on the basis of the tort of
harassment. However, he did not explain the genesis of the L
L tort action, cited no authorities, and made no reference to
the position in England, where, according to Hale LJ in
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust (above), there was no M
M
tort of harassment prior to the passing of the Protection
From Harassment Act 1997.
N
N
(5) However, Deputy Judge Carlson’s award of damages for
harassment may signal the beginning of the development of O
O the tort action in Hong Kong. Although Rogers V-P in
Wong Wai Hing v Hui Wei Lee [2001] 1 HKLRD 736 (11.3
above) thought that “harassment is not illegal”, support can P
P
be found in the judgment of Cheung J in Wong Tai Wai v
Hong Kong SAR Government (above) where he said: Q
Q
(1) little guidance on the common law can be obtained
from the English courts now because of the statutory R
R provisions there, which have no Hong Kong
equivalent;
S
S
(2) disregarding the statute, it is arguable that a tort of
harassment per se, or as part of a tort of intentional (or T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
57.This case serves to highlight the fact that some of the existing causes of P
P
action (see discussions on private nuisance and trespass to goods above)
Q
Q are inappropriate in dealing with a case of harassment. I quote with
agreement some of the observations made by Lord Goff in Hunter v R
R
Canary Wharf Ltd, p 691H to 692B:
S
S
“… If a plaintiff, such as the daughter of the householder in
T
T Khorasandjian v. Bush, is harassed by abusive telephone calls,
U
U
V
V
A
A
K
K
59.I am unable to see any reason why there should not be a tort of
L
harassment to protect the people of Hong Kong who live in a small place L
O
O
60.In Singapore, where the social conditions are not very different to those
P
of Hong Kong, the tort of harassment has been recognised since 2001 (see P
Malcomson Bertram & Anr v Naresh Mehta [2001] 4 SLR 454 at 470H to
Q
Q
474A).
R
R
61.This case serves to demonstrate that the time must have come for Hong
S
S
Kong to recognise this tort.
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
The parameters B
B
62.What are the parameters of this tort? First, I respectfully adopt the C
C
observation made by Lee JC in Malcomson in connection with the
D
D definition of harassment at 464F:
E
E
“For the purposes of this application, I shall take the term
‘harassment’ to mean a course of conduct by a person, whether F
F by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently
repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought
reasonably to know would cause, worry, emotional distress or G
G
annoyance to another person. This is not intended to be an
exhaustive definition of the term but rather one that sufficiently H
H encompasses the facts of the present case in order to proceed
with a consideration of the law.”
I
I
U
U
V
V
A
A
66.As regards the kind of injury or damage which may ground an action in B
B
tort of harassment, one can envisage that the harassment can result, at one
C
C end of the scale, physical injury and, at the other end, mere humiliation.
The correct balance has to be struck. Further, different person can react D
D
differently to the same type of harassment. A mature and confident person
E
E
may feel humiliated about a course of conduct, whereas a younger and
F
more sensitive person may be affected with serious anxiety. However, a F
67.Under the UK Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.3, damages can H
H
be awarded as a civil remedy for anxiety caused by harassment. However,
I
I
anxiety has not been defined in the Act.
J
J
68.I believe that the right balance has been struck in the above Act and I
K
K take the view that anxiety on the part of the victim, which has been caused
by harassment, would satisfy the threshold for this cause of action. L
L
M
M 69.Financial loss, eg, the cost of moving, can of course ground, and is
recoverable under, this cause of action. N
N
O
O 70.There can be no question that Lau has suffered far worse than anxiety
from the 6 years of harassment by Yip. I hold that this cause of action has P
P
been established.
Q
Q
71.I deal firstly with the special damage. I find the claims set out in S
S
Annexure 5 to the Opening Submissions proved. A copy of that document
T
T is attached to this Judgment. In total, I award a sum of HK$146,673.
U
U
V
V
A
A
72.In respect of general damages, Mr Luk has asked for both aggravated B
B
and exemplary damages to be awarded to Lau. I have been referred to
C
C Wong Kwai Fun v Li Fung [1994] 1 HKC 549 where Woo J (as he then
was) said at 581E: D
D
E
E “Aggravated damages are to compensate the victim for his
suffering in his feelings, dignity and pride, for his mental
discomfort and distress, and they must be justifiable on the basis F
F
of compensation. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are
punitive in nature and are awarded to teach the culprit that ‘tort G
G does not pay’ and to deter him and others from similar conduct.
See Clerk & Lindsell, ibid, paras 5/36 and 5/37.”
H
H
R
R 75.In my view, the claim of HK$600,000 is very reasonable and I so
award. S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
Injunction L
L
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
B
B (a) causing or permitting harassment, nuisance or intimidation to
the Plaintiff or his family members, namely, Madam Chung
C
C Sui Ying, Mr Lau Mut Nung, Madam Kwong Sau Fung (“said
family members”); D
D
(b) causing or permitting trespass to the properties belonging to
E
E
the Plaintiff;
F
F (c) entering or remaining at or coming within a distance of
30 metres from
G
G
(i) the Plaintiff’s place of residence at Room 1304, Yan
H
H Ming Court, Yan Chung House, Tseung Kwan O, Hong
Kong; I
I
(ii) the Plaintiff’s grandmother’s place of residence at
J
J Room 1911, Kai Sin House, Upper Wong Tai Sin
Estate, Wong Tai Sin, Hong Kong; K
K
(iii) the Plaintiff’s work place at 20/F, Tower 1, Admiralty
L
L Centre, 18 Harcourt Road, Hong Kong;
T
T
U
U
V
V
A
A
Costs B
B
80.The costs of this action be to Lau. His own costs are to be taxed in C
C
accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
D
D
81.Last but not least, I am grateful to Mr Luk for his assistance in these E
E
matters.
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I (Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court J
J
M
M
N
N
O
O
P
P
Q
Q
R
R
S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V