David Tang, a solicitor at Fung, Wong, Ng and Lam, brought libel proceedings against Belinda Yick at the end of last year.

The case, which centered on Tang refusing to produce a name card identifying himself when he entered Yick's premises with a group of surveyors, was deemed unworthy and a waste of time and money when it was heard in the High Court last November.

But Tang pursued the case in the Court of Appeal, which ruled it was ``unmeritorious'' and ``oppressive'' towards Yick. The appeal was unanimously dismissed, and Court of Appeal Judge Maria Yuen said the awarding of indemnity costs - which will allow Yick to recover more than her legal fees - was ``clearly warranted.''

The suit was filed after Yick sent letters to Tang and other parties saying that he had remained on her premises without permission and had been ``unable'' to show that he was a solicitor.

The incident dates back to May 13, 2003, when Yick allowed surveyors to enter her flat to investigate a complaint of water seepage. Since there were more people than she had expected, and after overhearing someone being addressed as ``solicitor,'' Yick asked for the name cards of those present.

``For some reason, which this court cannot understand,'' said the Court of Appeal, Tang refused to give his name card to the defendant. According to a voice recording of those events, Yick then asked the solicitor to leave, since she did not know who he was.

A surveyor testified that Tang and a trainee were part of the ``group,'' and that they remained in Yick's flat.

A day later, Yick wrote to her neighbor, the management company of the flat and the surveyor's firm, saying that ``two unknown men [had] entered without permission [and were] unable to provide any identity and proof of their profession.''

Tang filed for defamation, saying the remarks were untrue. Last year, the High Court ruled that the solicitor's entry was, indeed, unauthorized.

During the appeal hearing on May 25, Tang's counsel submitted that Tang was not ``unable'' to prove his identity, but he merely ``refused'' to hand over his name card.

``I have to say that I was very surprised that such an argument was advanced,'' said Judge Yuen. ``Obviously, the purpose of the defendant asking the plaintiff for his name card was to verify his identity as a solicitor,'' she said.

There should have been ``a more mature examination of the wisdom of maintaining this action,'' the judge said.

albert.wong@singtaonewscorp.com