AU MAN LEUNG v. AU CHI YUEN AND OTHERS

HCA 83/2023

[2026] HKCFI 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 83 OF 2023

_______________________

_______________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Introduction

1.  This is an application of Mr Au for summary judgment against four of the eight defendants in this action by Amended Summons re-filed on 3 October 2025 (“the Amended Summons”).This action is concerned with Mr Au’s disputes with his wife, his children and in-laws.

2.  Mr Au was a legal clerk working for a prestigious law firm back in 1959. He is now 83 years old and is wheel-chairbound. He started co-habitation with Madam Poon in 1967 and they got married in 1996. They were divorced in April 2025 after the commencement of these proceedings. Madam Poon is the 6^th defendant herein.

3.  Mr Au Chi Yuen (“Chi Yuen”) is their eldest son and is the 1^st defendant.

4.  Mr Au Chi Wai (“Wai”) is their third son and is the 2^nd defendant.

5.  Madam Yuen is the lawful wife of Chi Yuen and is the 3^rd defendant.

6.  Madam Chan is the lawful wife of Wai and is the 4^th defendant.

7.  This application only concerns Chi Yuen, Wai, Madam Yuen and Madam Chan (collectively “the CY Camp”).

8.  Madam Hung is the mother of Madam Yuen and is the 5^th defendant.

9.  Mr Au has an intimate relationship with a Thai lady known as Madam Daoruang Nittaya, also known as Kelly (“Kelly”). Mr Au used to patron a beauty shop called Modern Beauty in Admiralty with Madam Poon and Kelly was the designated masseuse of Mr Au there. Mr Au has started co-habitation with Kelly since 2021. In Mr Au’s pleaded case, Kelly often openly calls him “BB” in Cantonese (meaning “baby”).

10.  Ductile Investment Company Limited (“Ductile”) is the   corporate vehicle incorporated by Mr Au in or about 1977 for the purpose of   his investment on landed properties. Mr Au is allegedly its sole beneficial   owner.

11.  On or about 23 February 2002, Mr Au caused Ductile to allot and register 100 shares to each of Chi Yuen and Wai. Mr Au alleges that they hold their respective 100 shares on trust for him. Mr Au himself held 200 shares (“the 200 Shares”) and they are the subject matter of this application. Mr Au alleges that he was compelled to transfer to Chi Yuen and Wai.

12.  One of the properties acquired by the fund of Ductile is Flat L, 47/F, Tower 7, Cullinan West III, Phase 5 of Cullinan West Development, No.28 Sham Mong Road, Kowloon (“47L”). It was purchased in 2019 and Chi Yuen and Wai are presently the registered owners of 47L. In January 2022, Mr Au moved to L47 with Kelly and continue their cohabitation.

13.  Another property purchased by Mr Au with the fund of Ductile is Flat L, 49/F, Tower 7, Cullinan West III, Phase 5 of Cullinan West Development, No.28 Sham Mong Road, Kowloon (“49L”). It was registered in the name of Mr Au and Mr Au Chi Yuen and Wai are presently the registered owners of 49L. 49L is the other subject matter of this application.

Mr Au’s case and evidence

14.  Mr Au’s pleading has been amended four times and his Re-re-re-Amended Statement of Claim (“the RRRASC”) was re-filed on 3 October 2025.

15.  The RRRASC consists of 139 pages and its prayer for relief includes 57 items. The RRRASC is divided into 17 parts. By the Amended Summons, Mr Au asks for 47 reliefs against the CY Camp under Part 11 of the RRRASC.

16.  This is actually Mr Au’s second application for summary judgment. On 6 November 2023, Mr Au obtained summary judgment against Chi Yuen regarding his claim for HK$2,551,000 under Part 13 of the RRRASC.

17.  Ms Tsau, for Mr Au, explains that the principal aim of this application is to set aside certain documents relating to Ductile and L49. For the former (“the Ductile Documents”), they include bought and sold notes and instruments of transfer relating to the 200 Shares. For the latter, it was a Deed of Gift dated 8 July 2022 (“the Deed of Gift”) by which Mr Au transferred his legal title and beneficial interest in L49 involuntarily.

18.  Ms Tsau submits that Mr Au was coerced to sign all the Ductile Documents and the Deed of Gift by intimidation, harassment, duress and/or undue influence on the part of the CY Camp. Hence, all these documents should be set aside and Mr Au should be restored to his original position.

19.  She submits that these causes of action are well-supported by incontrovertible documentary evidence, undisputed facts and the own admissions of the CY Camp.

20.  Mr Au’s application is supported by his own affirmation and the 2^nd Affirmation of So Yat Chuen. Mr So is the handling solicitor acting for Mr Au and his affirmation is composed of 39 pages containing his analysis of the evidence of CY Camp, his personal feeling about and legal submissions on such evidence. Mr So also makes some serious allegations of Chi Yuen and Wai’s misappropriation of over HK$60 million from Ductile in late 2022, which are wholly irrelevant to the present application. Mr So even draws my attention to the average life expectancy for males in Hong Kong is about 82.8 years in 2024 and urges this court to consider the real possibility that he may not survive until the trial date. Mr So should know that this is clearly not the function of an affirmation.   

21.  Mr Au also managed to procure Madam Karyati who worked as his Indonesian domestic helper at the material time to make an affirmation in the Chinese language to support his application.

22.  Mr Au further relies on some video-recordings including two lengthy footages showing the two episodes of Mr Au being allegedly interrogated at L47 in late June 2022 before the signing of the impugned documents in early July 2022 and a video clip of a local TV programme known as “The Scoop” broadcast by TVB on 2 November 2023 (“the TVB Clip”) in which Chi Yuen and Madam Yuen gave an account of the family saga. Ms Tsau submits that the two footages regarding the alleged interrogations prove the intimidation, harassment, duress and undue influence whereas the TVB Clip contains admissions of Chi Yuen and Madam Yuen.      

23.  Some voice messages are provided by Mr Au. They were created by Madam Karyati and sent to Mr Au. I have listened to the voice messages but I fail to understand their relevance.

24.  Mr Au has pleaded a number of allegations of the intimidation, harassment, duress and undue influence of the CY Camp. I do not intend to set out Mr Au’s allegations here and the following summary should be sufficient for present purposes.

25.  The alleged tortious acts of the CY Camp began in the evening of 26 June 2022. The allegation is that the CY Camp brought with them the bank statements of Mr Au and went to L47 to repeatedly interrogate, threaten and reprimand Mr Au and Kelly and raise questions about the money that Mr Au had given to Kelly.

26.  The pleaded case of Mr Au is that prior to 26 June 2022, Mr Au tried to perfect his promised gift of HK$800,000 to Kelly for her agreement to co-habit with him. His partial payment of a sum of HK$400,000 by way of a cheque deposited to the account of one Mr Bunhom Cheng as directed by Kelly was unsuccessful because he did not transfer the amount to his current account. His cheque was dishonoured as a result. Chi Yuen collected the bounced cheque. Mr Au instructed Chi Yuen to deposit another cheque of HK$400,000 to the said account and it was finally honoured.

27.  Against this background, the CY Camp had a meeting with Mr Au to enquire about the gift made to Kelly at L47 (“the 26/6/22 Meeting”). It lasted for about 1.5 hours and Mr Au characterizes it as an interrogation. It was video-recorded by Madam Yuen with her mobile phone. Mr Au now alleges that the CY Camp threatened to impose an economic blockade upon him and demanded that he should accept an unreasonable option (“the First Option”) which included:

(1)  the eviction of Kelly from L47;

(2)  Mr Au being restricted to stay at L47;

(3)  Mr Au being prevented from further spending his own money;

(4)  the control of Mr Au’s money and assets;

(5)  Kelly being replaced by Madam Karyati to take care of Mr Au.

28.  Mr Au alleges that before the CY Camp left L47, Chi Yuen warned him not to go out and Wai said they might tie him up to prevent him from going to the banks.

29.  Mr Au alleges that he was left in a state of shock and devastation for the following two days.

30.  The second meeting (“the 28/6/22 Meeting”) took place in the evening of 28 June 2022 at L47. Chi Wai and Madam Yuen went to L47 and further interrogated, threatened and reprimanded Mr Au and Kelly, repeatedly asking about the money that Mr Au had given to Kelly. They demanded that Kelly should be evicted from L47. The 28/6/22 Meeting lasted for about 2 hours and was video-recorded by Madam Yuen.

31.  Mr Au alleges that he indicated to the CY Camp that he would not accept the First Option. He would rather leave L47 with Kelly.

32.  Then Chi Yuen gave another option (“the Second Option”) to Mr Au allegedly. He would allow Mr Au to leave L47 with Kelly if Mr Au agreed to sign some documents to transfer the 200 Shares and his legal title to L49 to Wai and him. The Ductile Documents were placed before Mr Au for him to sign.

33.  The CY Camp kept accusing Kelly of cheating Mr Au out of money and demanding her to leave L47 unless she returned the money.

34.  At last, Mr Au indicated to them that he did not accept either Options. The CY Camp then imposed the First Option in order to coerce Mr Au into accepting the Second Option. Mr Au was shocked and Kelly was evicted subsequently.

35.  Chi Yuen finally left the Ductile Documents with Mr Au and asked him to sign or else he would not be allowed to leave L47. Mr Au was devastated and shocked.

36.  It is alleged in his pleadings that the CY Camp after the 28/6/2022 Meeting succeeded in separating Kelly from him and confining him to L47 under the supervision of the CY Camp with the ultimate goal of coercing him to sign the Ductile Documents and the Deed of Gift.

37.  Mr Au repeatedly asked Madam Karyati to take him out of L47 to see Kelly but was refused. Madam Karyati told Mr Au that the CY Camp had instructed her not to allow him to go out unless he had signed the Ductile Documents.

38.  Mr Au alleges that on 3 July 2022, he told Chi Yuen that he would sign the Ductile Documents so that he could move out of L47 and see Kelly.

39.  Eventually, Mr Au succumbed and signed the Ductile Documents on 5 July 2022. He noticed that some of these documents such as the board resolution of Ductile was pre-dated 28 June 2022.

40.  Mr Au alleges that in the evening of 7 July 2022, Chi Yuen arranged a clerk of a legal firm to attend L47 with a copy of the Deed of Gift and asked Mr Au to sign on the same. Mr Au did so with full knowledge of the effect of the Ductile Documents and the Deed of Gift. The pleaded case of Mr Au is that he, nevertheless, “signed them involuntarily in order to be released from the repeated and ongoing interrogations and demands conducted in a threatening tone, unlawful threats, improper pressure, intimidation, harassment, physical restraint, coercion, undue influence and duress exerted by the CY Camp over that period, i.e. from 28 June 2022 onwards”.

41.  Mr Au managed to leave L47 and rented a flat in North Point to reside with Kelly. Mr Au also pleads that it took him some time to get recuperated from his deteriorated health and he regained some weight thereafter. I do not understand why these details are pleaded.

Discussion

42.  At the pleading level, the causes of action relied on by Mr Au are not pleaded in an organized and conventional manner. Part 11 of the RRRASC simply contains a large number of allegations and not all of them are logical and comprehensible. It is more like a diary of Mr Au. The foregoing account only includes a small portion of Mr Au’s allegations.

43.  The affirmation evidence adduced by Mr Au does not really improve his case.

44.  Ms Tsau stresses that this is an iron cast case since Mr Au’s allegations can be proved by the footages of the 26/6/22 Meeting and the 28/6/22 Meeting (collectively “the Footages”) and there is no room for any disputes. Further, she submits that admissions in the TVB Clip and the voice messages of Chi Yuen. She asks these video-recordings and audio-recordings to be played in court. Due to the time constraint, I refuse to do so and instead I should view them in my privacy.

45.  Not without reluctance, I have gone through the lengthy Footages and the TVB Clip and considered the written submissions of Ms Tsau in relation thereto. I have also listened to all the audio-recordings.

46.  First of all, it is simply inappropriate to take a blinkered approach and study the Footages alone to find out whether the CY Camp has committed the torts. It is not a CCTV footage showing how a burglar broke into a flat and fled with some properties taken from the flat. By studying the CCTV footage, one can be almost certain of the guilt of the burglar.

47.  There is a long history behind the 26/6/22 Meeting and the 28/6/22 Meeting. The CY Camp and Mr Au are in the same family.  

48.  These background matters are important to provide proper context for understanding what actually transpired at the Meetings and why the participants said and did something. They should be allowed to testify to explain themselves and be cross-examined at the trial.

49.  It serves no meaningful purpose and indeed is potentially misleading to pick one or two utterances in the long dialogue shown in the Footages to form the basis of serious allegations.

50.  Returning to the Footages, I am of the view that the overall picture they paint is quite different from what Mr Au now alleges. I watched with particular care those parts highlighted by Ms Tsau in her written submissions and I am not convinced that Mr Au has an unanswerable case based in those causes of action.     

51.  Mr Wong, for the CY Camp, is right in his submissions that any pressure exerted on Mr Au during the two Meetings may not necessarily be undue or unlawful. The intention of Chi Yuen is intolerably clear in the Footages. He had a legitimate concern about the welfare of Mr Au and he wanted to protect the assets of Ductile and Mr Au against dubious transfers to Kelly and/or her friends unknown to his family. Kelly was alleged to have stolen money from Mr Au too. Despite his suggestion to exercise control over the assets of Mr Au, Chi Yuen at the same time assured Mr Au that he would be well provided for and he could continue to trade in stocks with his own fund. Without hearing their live evidence, this court cannot come to a firm conclusion that the torts were committed by the CY Camp.

52.  It is noteworthy that Mr Au has made an allegation of false imprisonment against CY Camp. He alleges that the CY Camp did not allow him to leave L47 unless he signed the Ductile Documents. This serious allegation can lead to criminal prosecution and must be supported by cogent evidence. On the affirmation evidence and looking at the Footages alone, I cannot agree that this allegation is borne out by evidence.

53.  Before I leave the Footages, I should deal with an allegation made by Mr So in his affirmation and highlighted by Ms Tsau in her submissions. It is submitted that there was a desk lamp spotlight consistently directed at the face of Mr Au in a manner resembling an interrogation at both the 26/6/22 Meeting and the 28/6/22 Meeting.

54.  I agree that on both occasions, there was a table lamp placed on the desk in front of Mr Au. I would not say that it was consistently directed at the face of Mr Au. I do not understand why the lamp was switched on at the 26/6/2022 Meeting when the daylight appeared to be sufficient.

55.  In any event, Mr Au has never complained about the table lamp. He did not look troubled by it in the Footages in the first place and he did not ask to switch it off. I believe his hand could reach it despite the fact that he was seated in a wheelchair. Nor did he say anything about it in his affirmation. I fail to see how any valid complaints could be made out of it by a sheer viewer of the Footages.

56.  The TVB clip does not assist Mr Au at all. I have considered the contents of the clip as a whole and I do not agree that Chi Yuen or Madam Yuen made any admissions. Nor does the voice message of Chi Yuen. His reference to temporary economic blockade must be understood in context and cannot be equated with an admission.

57.  I have considered the affirmations of the CY Camp. I am of the view that their evidence, if accepted, can justify the dismissal of Mr Au’s claim under Part 11 of the RRRASC. They should be allowed to explain themselves in the witness box regarding the 26/6/22 Meeting and the 28/6/22 Meeting.

58.  Mr Wong pertinently refers to Ju Yan Di Emperory Genesisy v Yau Wai Han [2015] 1 HKLRD 822 in which Cheung JA at §14 said this,   

“It is well established that the burden on the defendant in a summary judgment application is to show that he has a credible defence and he must condescend to give particulars of his defence. However, this does not mean that once the plaintiff invokes the application and irrespective of the strength of his case, the defendant bears all the burden of showing that there are triable issues in the case. This is because the starting point in a summary judgment application is that it should only be invoked when there is no defence to the claim. This means that the plaintiff must in the first place demonstrate that the defendant has indeed no defence. This requirement is further recognised in the procedural rules which mandate the plaintiff to state his belief in the verifying affidavit that there is no defence to the claim. This requirement must be kept in proper perspective when assessment is made of the strength of the application, otherwise there is a danger that the attention will be focused solely on what the defendant has said without consideration at the same time of the basic premise of the plaintiff’s claim or its inherent strength and weakness.”

59.  The starting point of this application must be the basic premise of Mr Au’s case or its inherent strength and weakness. Overall speaking, the pleading and the evidence of Mr Au are far from satisfactory. The Footages raise serious concerns about the veracity of Mr Au’s pleaded. Regardless of the evidence adduced by the CY Camp, it is plainly not a case of summary judgment.     

60.  It should be borne in mind that summary judgment is only for clear cases and the court should not conduct a trial on affidavits. An Order 14 application is not meant to be a platform for a mini-trial. The disputes between Mr Au and the CY Camp under Part 11 of the RRRASC must be resolved with proper pleadings filed and relevance evidence adduced at trial. The evidence of Mr Au must be properly tested by cross-examination before his case can be established.

61.  That said, this is essentially a family matter and should best be resolved in an amicable manner.

Conclusion and orders

62.  For the reasons given, I come to the conclusion that no summary judgment can be granted in respect of Part 11 of the RRRASC. There are obviously factual disputes which can only be resolved at trial. I do not accept that the Footages, the TVB Clip and the voices messages can eliminate the need for a trial. Accordingly, the Amended Summons falls to be dismissed.                                                         

63.  Ms Tsau has put in an enormous effort on this application including many appendices to her very detailed written submissions to advance the case of Mr Au. She has literally left no stone unturned and yet the fundamental problem of this application remains.

64.  I opine that this application is misconceived and should not have been made. The factual disputes raised by the CY Camp should have alerted Mr Au that no summary judgment application should be made.

65.  In the circumstances, I make an order nisi that Mr Au should pay the CY Camp their costs of and occasioned by the Amended Summons including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed.

66.  It remains for me to thank Ms Tsau and Mr Wong for their assistance rendered to this court.