HUI HON CHEONG v. CHAN CHUN BUN AND ANOTHER

HCPI 202/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 202 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

------------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.  The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”) applied to join in as the 3^rd Defendant, and applied for further adjournment before the case is warned for trial. 

2.  This is a traffic accident.  The 1^st Defendant was the driver and the 2^nd Defendant the owner of the vehicle.  The insurer of the relevant policy of insurance was Anglo Starlite, a company under liquidation.  MIB has already taken over the conduct of the defence for the 1^st Defendant.  They say they could not locate the 2^nd Defendant.

3.  Messrs Munros, who have acted for the 2^nd Defendant before, wrote in and stated that they have no objection to the application.  But Ms Teh, for MIB, submitted that in fact she had conversation with Munros and the correct position should be that Munros had no further instructions to act for the 2^nd Defendant by reason of the liquidation of Anglo Starlite, and they had not been able to contact the 2^nd Defendant.  Hence, the MIB applies to join in as the 3^rd Defendant in order to fully protect its position.

4.  Mr Sung, for the Plaintiff, had no objection but indicated that the case be not warned before 1November 2009 is objectionable.

5.  The Anglo Starlite matter arose in about May this year, and the Court had already given a 2 months’ adjournment in this case as well as in many other cases in order that MIB may assess the general situation.

6.  Ms Teh indicated that the file in respect of the 1^st Defendant was not transferred to her firm until late June.  Be that as it may, what she proposed to do is to file an Acknowledgment of Service, Defence and Answer to the Statement of Damages, and she asked for 56 days to do those three things in sequence.  She then asked for time generally to assess the genuineness of this claim, as in the past there were instances of fraudulent claims by plaintiff and/or defendant’s acting in conspiracy.

7.  As to Acknowledge for Service, Ms Teh’s firm has already been on the record for the 1^st Defendant and she does not really need much time to file the Acknowledgement of Service. 

8.  As to Defence, she merely wants to file a general defence for the 3^rd Defendant but not to interview the 1^st Defendant in order to file any substantive defence afresh. 

9.  As to Answer to the Statement of Damages, there are existing copies to work on.  All they want to do is to verify them with the medical reports so that a statement of truth can be filed on behalf of MIB. 

10.  At such, it is really compliance rather than to start afresh. Hence, I suggested time be compressed from 56 days to 28 days, and Ms Teh accepted my suggestion.

11.  As to further investigation, the 1^st Defendant has been convicted of careless driving at the Magistrate’s Court.  At the moment that it does not seem to be any suggestion of fraud.  Hence, I am only minded to give the 3^rd Defendant one more month before the case be warned.  Of course, if investigation reviews any irregularities as between the Defendants and/or the Plaintiff, no doubt the matter will be referred to the police, and the case be then further stayed.   

12.  Hence I shall allow the 3^rd Defendant 28 days to file the pleadings, and the case is not to be warned before 1 September 2009.

13.  Parties have agreed that costs be in the cause.