KAZNA INVESTMENTS LTD v. 朱寶兒 AND ANOTHER

HCA 1637/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1637 OF 2024

_______________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.  On 19 March 2025, this Court entered Judgment for the Plaintiff and granted orders (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Order”) in favour of the Plaintiff, which included the following orders:-

(1)  An order against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for delivery of vacant possession of the part of Lot No. 129 in Demarcation District No. 83, North New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Lot”) as identified in orange in the plan annexed to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 16 August 2024 within 2 months from the date of the order; and

(2)  There be liberty to apply for further directions.

2.  On 17 September 2025, the Plaintiff filed an inter partes summons (“the Summons”)[1] seeking, inter alia, leave to amend the Order, and/or such further and other reliefs as the Court deems fit; and costs of and occasioned by the Summons.

3.  In essence, as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have failed to deliver vacant possession pursuant to the Judgment and the Order, the Plaintiff now seeks the Court’s assistance to secure the due performance of the Defendants’ obligations thereunder and to effect enforcement thereof. In particular, by invoking, inter alia, the liberty to apply for further directions and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to amend or clarify its order, the Plaintiff seeks to have the co-ordinates of the boundary points of the Lot clearly spelt out by way of an order (or an amended order) in order to facilitate enforcement.

4.  As deposed to in the 6^th and 7^th Affirmations of Ng Wing Ho[2] which were filed with the Court, service of the Summons, its supporting affirmation evidence, the Hearing Bundle and the Plaintiff’s written submissions and authorities was duly effected on the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants. A hearing of the Summons was held on 10 October 2025 with the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants failing to appear and the Decision was reserved. This is the Court’s Decision.

Discussion

5.  In Poon Ching Man v Lam Hoi Pun [2015] 3 HKLRD 57, Deputy Judge Winnie Tsui (as she then was) held that (1) the court has an inherent or implied discretionary power to amend, vary or clarify an order to reflect the court’s original intention in making that order if the court’s intention appearing from the body of the judgment is manifest (§23); and (2) the court may also revisit an order pursuant to the “liberty to apply” provision for the sole purpose of working out the order (§27-28).

6.  In the present case, I am satisfied that this Court has the power to grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff pursuant to both of these bases. The specification of the co-ordinates of the boundary points of the Lot is for the sole purpose of working out the Order and it also reflects the Court’s original intention in making the Order. I am also satisfied that in the circumstances of the present case, it is only just and appropriate that the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff be granted in order to facilitate their enforcement of the Judgment and the Order.

Decision

7.  This Court therefore makes the following orders in favour of the Plaintiff:-

(1)  The co-ordinates of the boundary points of Lot No.129 in Demarcation District No.83, North New Territories, Hong Kong, as shown in the plan annexed to the Statement of Claim dated 16 August 2024 and referred to in the Order and Judgment, both dated 19 March 2025, are those as set out in the plan annexed hereto; and

(2)  Costs of and occasioned by the Summons be to the Plaintiff with certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

Annex