In a 43-page statement, Deputy High Court Judge Ian Carlson said Grace Chin, a Hong Kong University psychologist, and Eugene Oh, a partner in a law firm lacked the notion of ''objectivity'' or ''reasonableness'' when conducting their litigation with a ''single minded obsessive determination which is quite irrational.''

The dispute should have been ''short and uncomplicated. Nothing could be further from the truth,'' noted the judge, who pointed out that an associated criminal damage and assault trial against Oh - ''a relatively brief set of circumstances'' - took up 24 working days in the Magistrate's Courts over three months.

Carlson awarded costs to the defendants, Kate Richdale and her husband Yan Su-zher.

Chin and Oh, a married couple with three children, were seeking an estimated HK$20 million at the trial, which began in April. The two alleged that they had developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), when their pet was mauled to death by a pair of mongrels owned by Yan and Richdale in 2000.

The couple alleged that the dogs were known to be aggressive and that Richdale and Yan, should have taken appropriate measures to ensure they posed no danger. The inability to rein in their dogs after the mauling kept the Oh family living in fear, causing them to relocate and exacerbated their psychiatric distress, the couple claimed.

Agreeing with psychiatrist Professor Felice Lieh-mak, Carlson ruled that ''unquestionably'' neither of the plaintiffs suffered PTSD, which is more commonly attributed victims of ''torture, terrorism, rape'' or intense trauma from combat.

Any ''traumatic stressors'' that may have caused psychiatric distress were of their own doing ''in this life-consuming pursuit for justice,'' during which ''any sense of reason, proportion or good judgment has been suspended,'' Carlson said.

''I am merely reflecting what any reasonably well-informed neutral observer would have to say about their approach to this case,'' Carlson ruled.

''The irony is that they both rely on this parlous state of affairs - this obsessive irrational behavior - in framing their claim for damages against the defendants.''

Given their irrational hostility, ''it is simply impossible to discount the prospect of concoction or gross exaggeration,'' in the version of the mauling recounted by Chin and Oh, the judge said.

The battles between the dog-loving former residents of Wong Tong Kung village in Clearwater Bay area began with ''niggles'' such as disputes over the erection of a canopy which allegedly obstructed the Oh family's view of the sea - which was ''some distance away and only partial at best'' added Carlson.

Carlson said that ''in the setting of a small village,'' where naturally territorial dogs erupted into fits of barking, a series of disputes escalated into litigation.

''The defendants were not prepared to capitulate to these (initial) demands which served to produce an escalation of the second plaintiff's (Oh's) hostility and determination to see the matter through to the conclusion that he was demanding,'' Carlson said. ''Five years on and millions of dollars in legal fees later, he has yet to achieve his purpose.''

Oh labeled the police and the Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Departments ''corrupt'' and ''incompetent'' when they failed to satisfy his objectives, the court heard.

Letters of complaint were sent to ''highest government officials, including the Office of the Chief Executive,'' and a signature campaign was mounted against Richdale and Yan.

Yan testified last April that Oh had also telephoned them, saying, ''Kill your dog, kill your dog,'' using obscenities.

Oh was convicted of common assault and criminal damage after he later threw stones at the offending mongrels, damaged a car after the rocks missed the dogs and assaulted Richdale.

Chin alleged she had taken her two Shih-Tzus, Sha-Sha and Muffin, for an early evening walk on June 19, 2000, during which Sha-Sha broke loose from his leash and went sniffing around the house of the Yan family.

By this time, Jasper and Lady, the two mongrels were barking aggressively, claimed Chin.

All of a sudden, Sha-Sha ''shot through'' the bars of the gate, apparently yanked by the mongrels, and was eventually mauled around the stomach.

But the judge questioned why there were no head injuries to Sha-Sha if the dog had indeed been yanked so smoothly through the bars of the gate.

There was also no evidence that the leash was broken.

Instead, neighbors reported that the Shih-Tzus were often seen wandering around the neighborhood without leashes and that the mutts had not previously been seen outside their own territory.

A photo purporting to show the offending mongrel about to breach its own fence was in fact, a photo of another neighbor's dog, the judge ruled.

Dogs barking is ''nothing unusual,'' Carlson said.

He ruled that it was ''unsafe'' to accept Chin's version of events.

Oh said he is considering an appeal.