Taipei District Court Judge Lin Weihuan has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by talk show host Dennis Peng against Kevin Haynes, Head of Legal Team at the London School of Economics. Peng, living in self-exile in California, faces arrest in Taiwan in a separate criminal defamation prosecution brought after complaint by Republic of China in-exile President Tsai Ing-wen. Peng had sued Haynes for aiding ROC prosecutors against him by making false statements about Tsai’s PhD thesis examination.
A complex web of litigation surrounds the controversial PhD thesis of President Tsai, entitled Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Action. Tsai triggered an academic firestorm that grew into a political issue in June 2019 when she filed her thesis with the LSE Library, thirty-five years late. Tsai refuses to disclose the oral viva examination report which purportedly approved her thesis. The LSE, where Tsai attended school, was unable to award PhD degrees in 1983, when the thesis was written, so the University of London awarded her a PhD degree on the strength of the secret viva examination.
Dennis Peng has been the most outspoken skeptic of President Tsai’s degree validity. Peng frequently devotes hour-long episodes of his popular True Voice of Taiwan program to the thesis controversy which earned him a criminal defamation complaint by Tsai, leading to Peng’s fugitive status. Because the Republic of China in-exile is not recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation there is no extradition treaty, thus giving Peng a safe haven in California. Tsai’s effort to imprison Peng have resulted in the non-renewal of his ROC passport in an attempt to force the United States to expel Peng.
Peng has fought back in ROC courts, without success. The recent dismissal ruling told Peng to take his legal battle with Haynes to the United Kingdom. The Taipei court noted Peng would have difficulty enforcing his judgment in Taiwan if he won his case and cited an undue burden on Haynes to defend himself because of international travel costs.
The decision explained the court’s reasoning.
“The defendant is not a citizen of Taiwan, and his listed residence is in London, which is outside the jurisdiction of Taiwan’s courts. The defendant does not have a residence in Taiwan, making it difficult to directly assert that Taiwan’s courts have international jurisdiction over the defendant in this private law dispute. Furthermore, if this case were to proceed in this court, the delivery of litigation documents to the defendant would have to be carried out through diplomatic channels, resulting in lengthy delays and an unpredictable duration for the litigation process, potentially causing procedural delays and a lack of procedural efficiency.”
“Additionally, the defendant is not a Taiwanese citizen, does not speak Chinese, and is not familiar with the written Chinese language, making it difficult for him to understand or use the language of Taiwan’s courts. Translation of relevant litigation documents would be required, which is highly inconvenient. The defendant has the right to appear in court to defend himself, but if he is required to respond to this lawsuit in Taiwan, he would have to deal with the inconvenience of cross-border communication, document delivery, and additional time, effort, and expense, which could significantly hinder his right to defend himself. Even if the defendant were to appear in court personally, he would have to bear additional high costs for travel to Taiwan, which would affect the fairness between the parties and infringe on their litigation rights.”
“Moreover, it is unclear whether the plaintiff’s claims have merit before the substantive examination of this case by the court. In the interest of fairness, the plaintiff should bear the inconvenience of litigating in the defendant’s place of residence, allowing the defendant to respond to the lawsuit in a familiar environment and language, and avoiding procedural difficulties that could affect his substantive and procedural rights, in accordance with the principle of equity. In general, the plaintiff should have made adequate preparations before filing the lawsuit and not done so hastily or without due consideration. However, the defendant is in a passive position, and if he has never met the plaintiff or engaged in any economic transactions with him, suddenly receiving documents from a foreign court would be confusing and potentially lead to a surprise attack. In order to ensure procedural fairness for both parties, it is appropriate for the plaintiff to file the lawsuit in the defendant’s place of residence, balancing the interests of both parties.”
“Furthermore, since the plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the defendant has any assets in Taiwan, and the plaintiff has declared his willingness to provide a guarantee and requests provisional enforcement, it would be difficult to enforce any judgments obtained by the plaintiff in Taiwan against the defendant, who does not reside in Taiwan and has no property in Taiwan. The plaintiff may also have to go through additional procedures, such as applying to a foreign court for recognition of a foreign judgment, making Taiwan an unsuitable and inconvenient forum for international jurisdiction.”
“Upon further investigation, although the plaintiff claims that the defendant created false documents in the course of his work and provided them to Taiwan’s representative office in the UK, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, and this court, resulting in the plaintiff being prosecuted and a warrant being issued for his arrest, the defendant’s actions and the consequences thereof took place within the jurisdiction of this court. However, the documents related to Tsai Ing-wen’s academic credentials are stored in the archives of the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the process of creating the documents and their underlying materials took place within the UK. The defendant is an employee of the London School of Economics and Political Science, and his involvement in providing documents to Taiwan’s representative office in the UK was incidental to his official duties. The defendant had no involvement in how the documents were used by Taiwan’s representative office in the UK or the consequences thereof, making it unfair for the defendant to be sued in Taiwan and potentially resulting in a surprise attack.”
“Furthermore, the documents in question date back more than 40 years, and it is uncertain whether the holders of these documents can be compelled to provide them as evidence in this court. As the relevant primary evidence is not located within Taiwan, the country’s connection to and interest in the dispute are weak. Conducting the litigation in Taiwan would be highly inconvenient for both the investigation of evidence and the parties’ ability to present their case, and it would be more appropriate and efficient to proceed in a UK court, which is better positioned to uncover the truth of the matter, save time, effort, and costs in the investigation of evidence, and promote procedural efficiency. If the case were to be heard in a Taiwanese court with weak jurisdictional connections, not only would it be manifestly unfair for the defendant to have to travel to Taiwan to respond to the lawsuit, spending time and effort in the process, but it would also lead to delays in the litigation and the inefficient use of judicial resources. It is therefore difficult to argue that there is a reasonable basis for Taiwan’s courts to exercise international jurisdiction over this case. In accordance with the principle of forum non conveniens, Taiwan’s courts should refuse to exercise jurisdiction even if they have international jurisdiction over the case.”
“Consequently, in terms of balancing the interests of the parties involved in this case, taking into account factors such as substantive fairness, judicial efficiency, convenience in investigating evidence, and the effectiveness of the judgment, the United Kingdom should be recognized as the place with the closest connection, and UK law should be applied substantively. It would be more appropriate for the case to be heard and applied by a UK court. Otherwise, if the scope of the tortious act is expanded indefinitely, it would violate the aforementioned principle of the closest connection and also infringe on the basic litigation principles for the original defendant.”
“In addition, even though the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s tortious acts and consequences occurred within the jurisdiction of this court in Taiwan, the right to sue is a constitutionally protected right of the people. However, due to the public nature of the state’s litigation resources, adjudicating foreign-related civil disputes that lack substantive connection with the exercise of Taiwan’s sovereignty, or whose adjudicative jurisdiction may not be recognized by the courts in the defendant’s domicile or where the property is located, or where the defendant has no property in Taiwan and thus cannot enforce the judgment, would result in a waste of judicial resources.”
Dennis Peng has appealed the decision while he explores his litigation options in the United Kingdom. A handful of Tsai thesis-related cases are currently pending before the Information Review Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal arising from Freedom of Information Act denials.
Richardson Reports 
3 thoughts on “Talk show host Dennis Peng told by Republic of China judge that lawsuit in Tsai Ing-wen thesis case against London School of Economics official Kevin Haynes belongs in United Kingdom”