On The Case Of Huang Shujie V. Zeng Yinquan

These years China’s civil lawsuit system has developed a lot and now it ismaturing. However problems such as malicious lawsuit still exist. It is reflected intwo aspects: the parties of lawsuit collude maliciously to harm the legitimate interestsof others; the party fraud the other party through prosecuting maliciously. The formeris included in amended civil procedure in2012, while the latter is also out of specificprovisions. In essence, that the party accuse on the purpose of cheating the other partyis abuse of procedural rights. It is also the abuse of litigation rights to proposeunfounded claims. Thus it is necessary to make the abuse regulated in civil procedure,and the case study of frivolous lawsuits is also of great significance.This is a case of Huang shujie who is a fisher in Guangdong Province sues Zengyinquan who is the Executive of Hong Kong SAR. The reason of the charge is thatHuang is dissatisfied with the police department and petition department’s nothandling his dispute with trading partner in Guangdong Province. The case initiallyaccepted by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, the court refused the plaintiff’sclaim. Then Huang appealed to the High Court, still rejected. The focuses ofcontroversy include: the case is a civil dispute or criminal fraud; case jurisdictionbelongs to the mainland or Hong Kong; whether there is liability for GuangdongProvincial Public Security Department to investigate the case; whether Hong KongSAR Government prevaricate handling of the case on the excuse of "one country twosystems"; whether Hong Kong SAR Government has the responsibility to request theCourt of Final Appeal to draw an interpretation of the Basic Law; whether there isHKSAR Government’s inaction that lead to the loss of the plaintiff. On the detailedcase study and jurisprudence of "one country two systems", it shows that the HKSARHigh Court’s judge is correct. Undoubtedly the case is a civil lending dispute,regardless of anyone’s different views; Mainland and Hong Kong both havejurisdiction; The Public Security Department of Guangdong Province has noresponsibility to investigate the case; Hong Kong SAR Government didn’t shirk itsresponsibility to be borne; the Hong Kong SAR Government has no obligation torequest the Court of Final Appeal to draw an interpretation of the Basic Law; theplaintiff’s loss was not caused by the HKSAR Government. Analysis on these legalfocuses can also provide a basis for abuse legal analysis. On the whole it is good forlegal regulation to excessive lawsuit, and to maintain stability and development of Hong Kong’s civil procedure, also to promote the civil procedure development ofHong Kong, and even the Mainland.