CHENG CHEUNG WANG v. LO NOI YUNG AND OTHERS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1987, No. 1747
Miscellaneous Proceedings

______________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

Cons, V.-P.:

1. The Applicants, all seven of them, are owners, or holding Powers of Attorney from the owners, of flats in a building known as the Han Palace Building in King's Road, North Point.

2. It would appear from the papers that have been put before me that the maintenance of that building leaves, or has left a great deal to he desired, so much so, that in November 1984 other owners in the building took steps in Court to have the Management Committee dissolved.

3. An interim order was made by Deputy Judge Barnett in November 1984 whereby he appointed Messrs. Collier Petty, broadly speaking, in place of the Management Committee. Proceedings were transferred to the District Court and the order was in effect confirmed by Judge Scriven in October last year. It is due to expire at the end of this year, but there are provisions therein by which the appointment of Messrs. Collier Petty may be made to continue.

4. In pursuance of leave granted by this Court, an appeal is pending.

5. It would seem that as Managers Collier Petty expended money on the building, sought to recover it from the owners of the various flats within the building and that the seven Applicants refused to pay. Messrs. Collier Petty successfully took action against five of them in the District Court, obtaining judgments in November last year and charging orders against their properties in February this year.

6. It is, as I understand their affidavits, the Applicants' view that the order of Deputy Judge Barnett, and the consequent order of Judge Scriven, were null and void, alternatively were not binding upon them. The validity of the orders could not have been challenged in the proceedings against them, and therefore they applied to join in the original proceedings taken against the members of the Management Committee. That application was long after leave to appeal had been given by this Court, and Judge Scriven adjourned the application sine die against, I presume, the possibility that the action might be referred back to the District Court.

7. This morning I have been told that that was not the first application. In January last year Master O'Donnell rejected an earlier application. No appeal was lodged.

8. Counsel for the Application bases his application upon a suggestion that, being affected by the judgment, the Applicants have a right to intervene. With respect, I take the view that at this stage they have no right as such, it is a matter of the Court’s discretion.

9. I understand that the application properly made to Master O'Donnell was rejected on a technicality. I would have expected then a repeat application, in the ample time that remained before the hearing in October. The Applicants could then have been represented in the Court below.

10. There is no suggestion that the Applicants can put forward arguments different from those which will be advanced by the present seven Respondents to the appeal or that their position is in any way significantly different. Indeed from what I have seen in Court this morning I am inclined to think that there is indeed little difference in identity. Nothing is to be gained, except further, expense, by a mere increase in the number of parties to the appeal, and I therefore refuse this application.