|
HCA 2337/2016
[2020] HKCFI 1040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2337 OF 2016
_____________
BETWEEN
| |
KOO MING KOWN |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
REV. MR. MOK KONG TING
(PRESIDENT OF THE BAPTIST CONVENTION
OF HONG KONG) |
1st Defendant |
| |
REV. MR. LAM SAU KWONG |
2nd Defendant
(Dismissed) |
| |
CHAN CHI MONG, HOPKINS |
3rd Defendant |
| |
THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG |
4th Defendant |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
26 May 2020 |
| Date of Decision: |
3 June 2020 |
________________________
DECISION
________________________
1. This is an appeal by Koo Ming Kown (“the plaintiff”) from the decision of Master Vincent Lung dated 29 April 2019 (1) allowing the application of Chan Chi Mong Hopkins (“D3”) to strike out the plaintiff’s re-amended statement of claim (“RASOC”); (2) dismissing the plaintiff’s summons for further and better particulars of D3’s defence; and (3) dismissing the plaintiff’s summons for discovery.
I. BACKGROUND
2. The relevant background appears in the Decision of DHCJ To (“the judge”) dated 4 May 2018 (“the 2018 Decision”) at §§6-8 (set out below) which I gratefully adopt:
“6. The relevant background of this case can be gleaned from the following paragraph of the pleadings filed by [The Baptist Convention of Hong Kong] BCHK in HCA 946/2003 (on appeal to the Court of Appeal in CACV 2/2007) concerning the trademark ‘培正’ [2]:
‘For over a century, not only has the 1st Plaintiff [Pei Zheng Middle School (the Guangzhou predecessor the Pui Ching Schools in Hong Kong)] been in the service as a provider of quality education to numerous students, but the 1st Plaintiff has also, through the members of its school board and with the assistance of its alumni, established and/or advised, assisted and supervised in the establishment and/or administration of other primary and secondary schools under and by reference to the name “培正” and the red and blue insignia of “培正” throughout southern China, including Hong Kong and Macau.’
7. At the heart of this case is the plaintiff’s fight for the good name and reputation of the Schools by ensuring that the Primary School is not subject to the control of [D3], whose integrity the plaintiff considered highly questionable. On the plaintiff’s case, [D3], who was previously appointed by BCHK as the supervisor of both the Primary School and the Middle School and who still continues to serve as the supervisor of the Primary School, is not a ‘fit and proper person’ for that appointment in that:
(1) [D3] represented to the Hong Kong Christian Council that he has the qualification of ‘Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc (Eng)’;
(2) [D3] has claimed on a number of occasions that his Ph.D. degree was obtained in 2007 from The European University of Ireland;
(3) on 25 February 2000, it was reported that The European University of Ireland was operating without official sanction;
(4) on 14 November 2005, the scandal of bogus degrees awarded by The European University of Ireland was exposed;
(5) on 24 September 2011, it was reported that The Higher Education Authority had expressed concern about the unlicensed operation of The European University of Ireland;
(6) the plaintiff has taken steps to confirm that the Ph. D. degree purportedly granted by The European University of Ireland is not a valid degree granted by an accredited degree-awarding authority; and
(7) it was further confirmed that The European University of Ireland was a limited company registered in Ireland which ceased to exist since 2010.
8. The plaintiff’s complaint to BCHK against [D3]’s integrity, his misrepresentation of his doctorate qualification, and his fitness as supervisor of the Primary School was met with a public notice dated 18 December 2015 issued by BCHK defending [D3]. BCHK purported to justify [D3]’s continuation in the office of supervisor by saying that ‘the educational qualification of the nominee is not a requirement for the appointment’. The plaintiff considered BCHK’s approach irresponsible and unsatisfactory. He thought BCHK should have investigated [D3] and his academic qualification and provided an account of the serious matter. But despite his repeated complaints from December 2015 to August 2016 that it was wrong for BCHK to defend [D3] and to have allowed him to stay in his position as supervisor without resolving the issue of his integrity, [D1] and BCHK failed and/or refused to carry out any investigation or to take any appropriate action. This led the plaintiff to commence the present action against [D1] and [D2] and further to seek to amend the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim to join D3 and BCHK as necessary parties.”
3. The hearing before the judge was an appeal by D1 and D2 from the decision of Master Ho dated 17 July 2017 allowing D3 to be joined as a party.
4. On 4 May 2018, the judge dismissed D1 and D2’s application for striking out, granted the plaintiff leave to join D3 and BCHK (“D4”) as parties, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim. The RASOC was filed on 1 September 2017 and served on D3.
5. On 30 October 2018, D3 issued a strikeout summons which came before Master Vincent Lung whose decision is the subject matter of the present appeal.
II. CHRONOLOGY
6. D3 held the positions of supervisor of the Primary School and of the Middle School (collectively “the Schools”) as from 1 September 2010 and thereafter was renewed annually.
7. The plaintiff commenced this action on 9 September 2016 against the Rev Mr Mok Kong Ting (President of BCHK) (“D1”) and the Rev Mr Lam Sau Kwong (“D2”) when, after making numerous complaints from late 2015 to BCHK that D3 was not a fit and proper person to be supervisor of the schools, D1 and D4...
| 
