HCMP1117/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1117 OF 2004
-----------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF Order 113 of the Rules of the High Court and other matters
and
IN THE MATTER OF the parcel of ground registered in the Tsuen Wan New Territories Land Registry as Lot 19-28 DD 455
-----------------------------
BETWEEN
CHU PAK HEI
Applicant
and
LAU TIM FAT
1st Plaintiff
LAU TIM YAU
2nd Plaintiff
LAU TIM CHOI
3rd Plaintiff
LAU MAN KIT
4th Plaintiff
LAU TAK HUNG
5th Plaintiff
LAU HON KEUNG
6th Plaintiff
LAU WING MAN
7th Plaintiff
LAU WING CHUNG, PAUL
8th Plaintiff
LAU SHU WAN
9th Plaintiff
LAU SHUE TAN
10th Plaintiff
LAU FUK PING
11th Plaintiff
LAU FUK SHEUNG, MONDY
12th Plaintiff
LAU FUK SANG
13th Plaintiff
LAU FUK HONG
14th Plaintiff
and
LI BANG-YUEN
1st Defendant
LI BANG-YU
2nd Defendant
(whose names are known)
LAM KWOK WAI
3rd Defendant
----------------------
Before : Hon Yam J in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 30 August 2006
Date of Judgment : 30 August 2006
-------------------------
JUDGMENT
-------------------------
1. The applicant applied to be joined as a defendant. He claimed to be the subtenant of the principal tenant, the 3rd defendant herein. However, on 22 March 2006, Deputy Judge Muttrie had already entered judgment for the plaintiffs, being the registered owner of the suit property, against the 3rd defendant.
2. Thus even if the applicant is the subtenant of the 3rd defendant, the applicant’s interest, as he claimed, in part of the property had already been terminated by reason of the termination of the head lease. In fact, Deputy Judge Muttrie made a declaration that the head tenancy was null and void and of no effect at all times.
3. The applicant’s counsel submitted before me that that decision of Deputy Judge Muttrie is on appeal and if Deputy Judge Muttrie’s decision is reversed, then the applicant can be said to be an interested party in the action.
4. That, in my view, cannot be a ground of reversing the decision of Master Ho. The judgment entered had already terminated the head tenancy. Accordingly, the applicant has no basis in this application to be joined as a party herein. This appeal against Master Ho’s decision must be dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.
5. The costs of today’s hearing is assessed summarily at $30,000.00 to be paid by the applicant to the plaintiffs within 14 days hereof.
(D. Yam)
Mr Daniel Tang, instructed by Messrs C.W. Lau & Co., for the Applicant
Mr Jonathan Chang, instructed by Messrs Rowland Chow, Chan & Co., for the 1st to 14th Plaintiffs
The 3rd Defendant, absent
Appeal dismissed: see CACV335/2006 dated 6 March 2007