鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

DCMP 6907-9 & 6912-3/2024

[2025] HKDC 1158

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6907 OF 2024

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

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

BETWEEN

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6908 OF 2024

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

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

BETWEEN

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6909 OF 2024

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

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

BETWEEN

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6912 OF 2024

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

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

BETWEEN

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 6913 OF 2024

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

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

BETWEEN

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

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

REASONS FOR DECISION and
DECISION ON COSTS

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

1.  On 11 December 2024, the same 2 Plaintiffs, Tang Sing Ki (鄧昇旗) and Tang Chak Mo (鄧澤武) (together “the OSPs”) issued 5 Originating Summonses to commence these 5 sets of Miscellaneous Proceedings[1] (together “the 5 OSes”) under O 113 to recover the possession of the pieces of land in Yuen Long from unknown occupiers in 4, and a known occupier in one, of the 5 OSes as tabulated below :

Case number	The land	Defendant(s)
DCMP 6907/2024 (“DCMP 6907”)	Lot 794 in DD121	身份不詳的佔用人
DCMP 6908/2024 (“DCMP 6908”)	Lots 1311 & 1313 in DD122	身份不詳的佔用人
DCMP 6909/2024 (“DCMP 6909”)	Lots 1331RP & 1334RP in DD122	蔡美明 (“蔡”) as 1st Defendant, and 身份不詳的佔用人 as the 2nd Defendant
DCMP 6912/2024 (“DCMP 6912”)	Lot 2543 in DD124	身份不詳的佔用人
DCMP 6913/2024 (“DCMP 6913”)	Lot 1318RP in DD122	身份不詳的佔用人

2.  These pieces of land, the subject matters of the 5 OSes (together “the 5 OSes Lands”), as transpired, are, together with 37 other lots, the subject matters of HCA 154/2024 (“HCA 154”) contested between the OSPs on the one part and Tang Chai On (鄧齊安) and Tang Chak Ming (鄧澤明)(together “the Interveners”) on the other.

3.  At this hearing, I have heard altogether 8 Notices of Appeal and 5 summonses and formally dealt with 3 other summonses in the 5 OSes. This Court acknowledges the helpful assistance of Mr Yeung (with him Mr Chan) appearing for the OSPs, Mr Yau (with him Mr Lui) appearing for the Interveners, and Mr Wong appearing for 鄒玉芬 (“鄒”), the intended defendant in DCMP 6908, 蔡, the 1^st Defendant in DCMP 6909 and 中創工程有限公司 (“中創工程”), the intended defendant in DCMP 6912 who while advocating for their respective clients were reasonable and sensible in their stances and approach thereby assisting the Court to come to what essentially are appropriate case management decisions.

4.  In the course of the hearing,

(a) I gave leave to withdraw the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses (defined below) and the 3 Troublesome NTAs (defined below) with no order as to costs;

(b) Messrs Eddie Lee & Co gave, and I accepted, their undertaking to file within 3 days respective Notices to Act for 鄒 in DCMP 6908, for 蔡 in DCMP 6909 and for 中創工程 in DCMP 6912 (together “the 3 Respective Occupiers”); and

(c) The Interveners gave, and I accepted, their undertaking to file and serve their affirmation evidence within the next 7 days deposing to the fact that the Interveners have at all material times up to today been in possession of the land claimed in DCMP 6907 and in DCMP 6913.

5.  At the conclusion of the hearing and upon those undertakings, I made the orders set out at [39], [41], [42] and [43] below in gist ordering the joinder of 鄒 in DCMP 6908 and 中創工程 in DCMP 6912, the joinder of the Interveners as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in each of the 5 OSes and maintaining the Stay (defined below) but in more elaborate terms.

6.  I have also heard submissions on costs and have reserved my decision thereon.

7.  These are the reasons for granting the said orders and my decision on costs.

Procedural history leading to the stay granted by the Registrar on 8 April 2025

8.  On 17 March 2025, Messrs Eddie Lee & Co filed a Notice to Act in DCMP 6909 and in DCMP 6912 to act for Tang Chai On (鄧齊安) as the occupier of the respective land claimed in these 2 sets of proceedings. On 24 March 2025, Messrs Eddie Lee & Co filed a Notice to Act in DCMP 6908 also to act for Tang Chai On (鄧齊安) as the occupier of the land claimed. I will refer to these 3 Notices to Act as “the 3 Troublesome NTAs”.

9.  However, by a summons dated 3 April 2025 filed in each of the said 3 sets of proceedings (together “the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses”), Messrs Eddie Lee & Co sought to amend the 3 Troublesome NTAs, as having been mistaken filed as they were, by deleting the name of Tang Chai On (鄧齊安) and substituting (a) in respect of the Notice to Act in DCMP 6908, by 鄒as the occupier of the land, (b) in that of DCMP 6909, by 蔡, and (c) in that of DCMP 6912, by 中創工程as the occupier of the land.

10.  On the same day, ie. 3 April 2025, the Interveners issued a summons in each of the 3 set of proceedings, ie. DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912 (together “the Interveners’ 1^st Batch Summonses”) applying in each of them for the same order that (a) they be joined either as the 1^st and 2^nd Interveners or as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, (b) further proceedings be stayed pending the determination or settlement of HCA 154 or until further order, and (c) alternatively, the proceedings be converted into a writ action.

11.  On 8 April 2025, Registrar Soong presided over the first hearings of the 5 OSes together, with the Defendants in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 being absent and all other parties in the 5 OSes legally represented. She ordered that the 5 OSes “be stayed until further directions of the court pending HCA 154/2024” (“the Stay”) with liberty to apply, and reserving costs. Apparently, the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses and the Interveners’ 1^st Batch Summonses were accordingly also stayed and not heard or dealt with; and the Stay ordered in respect of DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 was ordered upon the exercise of case management power on the volition of the Court as the Interveners did not issue any summons to apply for it.

Procedural history thereafter

12.  On 22 April 2025, the OSPs filed 5 respective Notices of Appeal in the 5 OSes to appeal against the said order made by the Registrar and therein asked that the Stay be lifted in the 5 OSes and then

(a) in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913, there be granted an order for possession of the respective pieces of land claimed therein;

(b) in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912 respectively,

(i) 鄒and 中創工程 do within 14 days take out a proper application, supported by affirmation evidence, to be joined as a party to respectively DCMP 6908 and DCMP 6912;

(ii) 蔡do within 14 days indicate his position regarding the OSPs’ claim in DCMP 6909 and file and serve affirmation evidence;

(iii) the Interveners do file and serve further affirmation within 14 days in each of these 3 sets of proceedings stating their capacity in connection with, and their relationship with the 3 Respective Occupiers in respect of the relevant land; and

(iv) thereafter, there be a directions hearing in each of the 3 sets of proceedings.

13.  On 24 June 2025, the Interveners issued a similar summons in each of DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 (“the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses”) asking that these summonses be heard together with this appeal, that they be joined as parties and further proceedings be stayed until the final determination of HCA 154 or further order of the Court.

14.  On 25 June 2025, the Interveners filed 3 respective Notices of Cross Appeal in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912 asking essentially the same joinder order and stay as sought in the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses.

15.  On 27 June 2025, the Interveners filed the 2^nd affirmation of Tang Chai On in DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912. On 30 June 2025, the Interveners filed the 2^nd affirmation of Tang Chai On in DCMP 6908. In these 3 affirmations (together “the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations”), it was deposed, and the corresponding tenancy agreements were exhibited, that

(a) He sub-leased Lots 1311 and 1313 in DD122 to 鄒with the term of lease running from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2027. This lot is the subject land in DCMP 6908;

(b) He sub-leased Lot 1331RP in DD122 to 蔡 until the end of 2024 and he sub-leased Lot 1334RP in DD122 to 蔡 with the term of lease running from 15 March 2021 to 14 March 2026. These 2 lots are the subject land in DCMP 6909; and

(c) He sub-leased Lot 2543 in DD124 (among other 4 lots in DD124) to 中創工程 with the term of lease running from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2027. This lot is the subject land in DCMP 6912.

16.  It is common ground that this was the first time that these sub-leases situations were divulged (the same had not been informed to the Registrar at the hearing on 8 April 2025 by the Interveners nor the 3 Respective Occupiers). The OSPs, in my view sensibly, did not object to the filing of, and reliance by the Interveners on, the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations, as it will be recalled, that such affirmation evidence (among others) has been sought by the OSPs in their respective Notices of Appeal in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912.

The disputes in HCA 154

17.  HCA 154 was commenced in January 2024. The disputes therein, as gleaned from the pleadings and broadly described, are as follows.

18.  The Interveners are the plaintiffs and the OSPs are the 8^th and 9^th defendants. They are the key protagonists. The remaining parties consist of the 1^st defendant, being the 6 managers of the Tso (defined below) being sued together as one defendant, and the 2^nd to 7^th defendants, who are and were the heads of the 6 Fongs (房) of the Tso.

19.  It is not disputed in the 5 OSes and in HCA 154 that

(a) the OSPs and the Interveners are all members of 鄧輯伍 (五) 祖 (“the Tso”);

(b) the Tso is a customary trust registered under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) and the registered owner of 44 lots of land in Yuen Long (“the Tso Lands”), which are the subject matters in HCA 154; and

(c) the Tso Lands include all of the 5 OSes Lands.

20.  In very broad terms, the Interveners’ case is this. They have been the tenants of the Tso Lands since no later than 1998 under successive tenancy agreements signed by them with the Tso. The terms of lease in the latest set of such tenancy agreements all expired on 31 December 2022 (“the Interveners’ Tenancies”) but the Interveners are entitled to, and have exercised, the options to renew the various relevant leases leasing the Tso Lands for a term of 6 years commencing from 1 January 2023. The Interveners’ case relies on certain express terms in the leases, 6 implied terms, some 12 resolutions of the members’ meeting of the Tso and certain “common understanding and belief actually held”. The Interveners say that, wrongfully, the Tso and the 1^st to 7^th defendants failed or refused to renew the leases in favour of them, and rather, some of the defendants signed certain purported new leases all dated 4 June 2021 leasing the Tso Lands to the OSPs as from 1 January 2021 (“the 2021 Disputed Tenancies”). The Interveners claim that they are entitled, among others, to an order for the renewal of the leases and a declaration that the 2021 Disputed Tenancies are null and void.

21.  The Interveners also claim damages against the OSPs for knowingly and intentionally procuring the breach of the Interveners’ Tenancies.

22.  By their Amended Defence and Counterclaim (recently amended on 9 June 2025) (“the ADCC”), and again, in very broad terms, the OSPs dispute the Interveners’ case and contend that the 2021 Disputed Tenancies are valid.

23.  It is pertinent to note that the OSPs in HCA 154 counterclaim for the possession of “the Sub-tenants’ Trespassed Land” and “the Plaintiffs’ Trespassed Land”:

(a) “The Sub-tenants’ Trespassed Land” so pleaded in the Counterclaim are those pieces of Tso Lands purportedly sub-leased by the Interveners after the expiry of the Interveners’ Tenancies. In the recent amendment, the OSPs pleaded that the land lease to 蔡, namely Lots 1331RP & 1334RP in DD122 (subject land of DCMP 6909), were among the land so claimed.

(b) “The Plaintiffs’ Trespassed Land” so pleaded are those pieces of Tso Lands occupy by the Interveners after the expiry of the Interveners’ Tenancies, and among them are Lots 1311 and 1313 in DD 122 (subject land of DCMP 6908).

24.  It is also noted that the OSPs originally alleged in the Counterclaim that the Interveners have also wrongfully sub-leased Lot 794 in DD121 (subject land of DCMP 6907) but the allegations were deleted in the recent amendment.

Sorting out the occupation of the 5 OSes Lands and the locus and legal representation of the 3 Respective Occupiers

25.  The situations in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912 can be narrated together as the first group.

26.  As mentioned above, 鄒and 中創工程 have not formally applied as an occupier to be made a party respectively in DCMP 6908 and DCMP 6912 and 蔡, while having been named as a defendant in DCMP 6909, has not formally appeared to show cause. To date, neither of them has filed any affirmation evidence. There were but the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses which until an order having been made (and none has been made) would not have the effect of rendering the 3 Troublesome NTAs as valid Notices to Act for the 3 Respective Occupiers. That notwithstanding, and despite the appearance of Mr Wong for the 3 Respective Occupiers at this hearing, no proper Notices to Act in respect of them have yet been filed.

27.  It is untidy, if not confusing, that the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses have not been dealt with. The proper course is not to seek to amend the 3 Troublesome NTAs, but to withdraw them and file fresh ones. As said, at the hearing I gave leave to withdraw the 3 NTA Amendment Summonses and the 3 Troublesome NTAs with no order as to costs and I required, and was given, an undertaking by Messrs Eddie Lee & Co to file fresh Notices to Act.

28.  Next, it was by, and until the filing of, the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations that there is evidence that the 3 Respective Occupiers have been occupying the respective relevant land and so occupying pursuant to sub-leases purportedly granted by the Interveners. Moreover, I was informed by Mr Yau that 蔡 has remained in possession of Lot 1331RP in DD122 after the lease in respect of that lot granted by the Interveners has expired on 31 December 2024. Mr Wong in his written submissions and at the hearing confirmed the facts so deposed to in the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations and so informed by Mr Yau.

29.  Turning next to the subject land of the remaining 2 sets of proceedings, ie. DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913. This Court enquired in the course of hearing with the OSPs and the Interveners regarding their positions and evidence, if any, concerning who have been occupying the corresponding land. The OSPs’ position was that they were occupied by persons unknown who have erected unauthorized structures thereon causing concern. Mr Yau said in his written submissions and confirmed at the hearing on behalf of the Interveners that the Interveners have remained in possession of those pieces of land after the expiry of the Interveners’ Tenancies. Upon the Court requiring, the Interveners undertook to file an affirmation within the next 7 days deposing to those facts. I note that this was the first time that such occupation by the Interveners was divulged.

Maintaining the Stay but in more elaborate terms

30.  Whether to stay the 5 Oses in view of HCA 154 is essentially a case management decision on which the Court has a discretion. Where a party has a right to commence proceedings, a stay should be granted only when there are very good reasons and in rare and compelling circumstances, to be decided with the objectives in mind of what would serve the ends of justice between the parties and the administration of justice generally and what would better achieve the primary aim and underlying objectives as set out in Order 1A of the Rules of the District Court. In a situation like this, the Court is also concerned that there would be no duplicity in proceedings risking inconsistent findings and rulings as well as flouting the underlying objectives, to name but some of the potential undesirability.

31.  The OSPs said that they commenced the 5 OSes to recover possession from squatters, and as between themselves and the squatters, even though there is presently HCA 154 disputing their entitlement to the land, their title to the land is still clearly relatively superior to that of the squatters (who has none) entitling them to recover possession from the squatters pursuant to O 113.

32.  Mr Yeung drew attention to the orders sought under the 5 Notices of Appeal – that order for possession is only sought in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 where the occupiers were unknown; and in contrast, directions for filing affirmations to confirm the status of the 3 Respective Occupiers and the relationship between them and the Interveners were sought in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912, and then a directions hearing once these matters were clarified.

33.  He also mentioned that the unauthorized structures erected on certain of these lands caused concern for enforcement by government departments. He emphasized that at the time of the filing of the 5 Notices of Appeal, it was not known, but it was only made known for the first time about a week before this hearing in the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations and at this hearing by Mr Yau orally, that the occupation situations were as narrated above.

34.  It seems to me that the above-mentioned matters and considerations put forth by the OSPs have validity only before and without the challenge by the Interveners asserting that they have the right of immediate possession of the 5 OSes Lands; and not after and with the challenge formally made.

35.  In this regard, I have no difficulty to accept, and Mr Yeung did not seriously dispute, Mr Yau’s submission that such assertion by the Interveners and the related disputes go to the OSPs’ entitlement to bring and prosecute these 5 OSes such that they have to be resolved before the 5 OSes should proceed further.

36.  Upon such assertion by the Interveners and with the occupation situations now sorted out as above-mentioned, Mr Yeung, in my view fairly and rightly, did not seriously dispute that there would be duplicity in proceedings between HCA 154 and the 5 OSes if the right to possession of the 5 OSes Lands were to be litigated under the 5 OSes. Indisputably, the intricate disputes of which of the OSPs or the Interveners are the proper tenants in respect of the Tso Lands (and therefore entitled to immediate possession of the 5 OSes Lands) are clearly much more properly and appropriately litigated in HCA 154. There is also no dispute that the present disputes over the 5 OSes Lands could easily be included in HCA 154 by an amendment of the Counterclaim therein pleading these lands as being sub-leased by the Interveners and/or possessed by them. Moreover, the concern caused by the erection of unauthorized structures on these lands could and should be more appropriately redressed by an application in HCA 154, presumably under O 29 of RHC, for interim measures to be taken to preserve the lands pending the resolution of these disputes.

37.  In the course of the hearing, this Court raised the question of why the 5 OSes should not be dismissed outright as the same subject matters could and should be litigated in HCA 154. I was persuaded by the OSPs not to do so. As to do so, the OSPs have no alternative but to bring new counterclaims in HCA 154 with at least the 3 Respective Occupiers as defendants to counterclaim thereby further complicating HCA 154. Whereas if the 5 OSes are stayed, upon the resolution of the disputes with the Interveners, the OSPs could recover possession from the 3 Respective Occupiers or any other occupiers under these 5 OSes with relative speed, ease and much less costs. The latter option is much more conducive to achieving the underlying objectives.

38.  Thus, I have no hesitation in concluding that a stay of proceedings ought to be imposed in the 5 OSes.

39.  Having discussed with all parties, and considering that there is a possibility that an out-of-court settlement might be achieved, that the immediate possession of some of the 5 OSes Lands may be given to one party and the others to the other, that there are further claims in HCA 154 between the parties for damages under other causes of action, and to install a mechanism for the ease of further handling, I would order a stay of proceedings in each of the 5 OSes (after the joinders ordered below are performed) in these more elaborate terms :

“Further proceedings be stayed pending the resolution of the disputes between the Plaintiffs and the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in HCA 154/2024 as to who are entitled to the immediate possession of the land claimed herein; and upon such resolution the Plaintiffs do within 30 days thereafter take out a summons for directions setting out therein the directions/orders sought supported by an affirmation deposing to the resolution and related circumstances, with liberty to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to take out a similar summons should the Plaintiffs fail to do so in time”.

Joinder of the Interveners and 鄒 and 中創工程 as Defendants

40.  The joinder of the Interveners was asked for in the Interveners’ 1^st Batch Summonses, the 3 Notices of Cross Appeal and the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses.

41.  In the circumstances, and not disputed by the OSPs, the Interveners’ joinder is clearly appropriate. There is advantage to order the joinder now, as opposed to also staying the application, in that the Interveners would then have the proper standing to be actively involved in dealing with the 5 OSes upon the resolution of the relevant disputes in HCA 154 without any need to restore the joinder application. I thus ordered in each of the 5 OSes that Tang Chai On (鄧齊安) and Tang Chak Ming (鄧澤明) be respectively joined as the 1^st Defendant and 2^nd Defendant; and in DCMP 6909, 蔡 hereinafter be renamed as the 3^rd Defendant.

42.  Though appearing at this hearing, 鄒and 中創工程 did not seek to be joined as respective defendant in DCMP 6908 and DCMP 6912 upon enquiry by the Court. Mr Yeung applied for leave to join them. As 鄒and 中創工程 admitted through counsel that they are occupiers of the relevant land and their joinder now would enable more speedy and economic handling of the matter upon the resolution of the disputes between the OSPs and the Interveners, I gave leave to the OSPs to join 鄒 as the 3^rd Defendant in DCMP 6908 and to join 中創工程 as the 3^rd Defendant in DCMP 6912.

43.  There will be leave to the OSPs to file and serve the Amended OS in each of the 5 OSes consequential to the joinders mentioned above within 14 days from the date of these Reasons.

Costs

44.  As said, costs were contested and I have heard submissions at the hearing. I will first deal with the costs between the OSPs and the Interveners.

45.  Mr Yau asked that the Interveners’ costs of the OSPs’ 5 Notices of Appeal, their 3 Notices of Cross Appeal, the Interveners’ 1^st Batch Summonses and the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses be treated as one set of costs and be paid by the OSPs. The basis was that in light of the orders I gave, the Interveners are essentially the actual winners in all of them.

46.  Mr Yeung was also content to treat the costs of all these matters as one set of costs. He submitted that the just order in the round would be making this set of costs in the cause.

47.  Though in my view there are matters in favour of the OSPs, as alluded to below, I am not persuaded that making all the costs in the cause is just. I accept that the central contention by the Interveners that their pending disputes with the OSPs in HCA 154 over the entitlement to immediate possession of the land, of itself, is sufficient to justify the Stay. And the OSPs, having unsuccessfully contested that, should pay the costs thereon. Moreover, I also take note that in the affirmations filed in support of the 5 OSes, the OSPs did not at all bring to the Court’s attention the existence of HCA 154 and therefore the existence of a pending dispute in the CFI on their entitlement to immediate possession of the 5 OSes Lands, nor have them informed the Interveners their intention to commence the 5 OSes prior to their issuance. This Court thinks that there is a shade of tactical maneuvering by the OSPs utilizing the O 113 summary procedure in the District Court to attempt to by-pass HCA 154 so as to grasp possession of part of the disputed land.

48.  On the other hand, while I accept that by and large the Interveners are the winner entitling them to the bulk of the costs, I am persuaded that some of the costs should be properly and more fairly treated as costs in the cause in that :

(a) As pointed out by Mr Yeung, the Interveners only applied to intervene in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 very recently on 24 June 2025 by the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses, which were filed after the respective Notice to Appeal in these 2 sets of proceedings had been filed on 22 April 2025; and the Interveners only divulged that they were in occupation of the land claimed in these 2 sets of proceedings at this hearing. Without the Interveners’ intervention in them and as against squatters (which was the position until at this hearing), the OSPs should be entitled to an order of possession. I accept that in such circumstances, it would not be just to order the OSPs to pay the Interveners’ costs of the appeal in these 2 sets of proceedings incurred prior to the issuance of the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses.

(b) In such circumstances, this hearing essentially was the first hearing of the Interveners’ application for joinder and stay in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913. In my view, it would be fairer to order the costs thereof as costs in the cause.

(c) Moreover, the joinder applications by the Interveners in DCMP 6908, DCMP 6909 and DCMP 6912 have not hitherto been actually dealt with. The OSPs did not actually resist this joinder at this hearing. The costs regarding this joinder, whether as applied for in the 3 Notices of Cross Appeal or in the Interveners’ 1^st Batch Summonses, should also be fairly treated as costs in the cause.

(d) Similar consideration applies to the costs spent on the joinder of鄒and 中創工程.

(e) The failure by the Interveners to divulge earlier the sub-leases and occupation situation did pose difficulties to the OSPs in their attempt to enforce their rights, and by the Interveners’ Latest Affirmations and the information provided orally by Mr Yau at the hearing, the Interveners’ essentially acceded to part of what the OSPs sought by the Notices of Appeal.

49.  Mr Yau explained that the Interveners’ 2^nd Batch Summonses were issued recently in response to the Notices of Appeal filed by the OSPs in DCMP 6907 and DCMP 6913 seeking to lift the Stay. I do not think that is the entire explanation. Upon enquiry, the Interveners could not offer any good explanation as to why they only provide the information deposed to in the Interveners’ Latest Affirmation so late or divulged that they have been the occupiers of the land claimed in these 2 sets of proceedings so late at the hearing. This Court’s impression was that it was a tactical decision on the part of the Interveners not to disclose earlier and these were only disclosed now upon (better) advice. I have little doubt that had the Interveners came forth earlier as the occupiers of the land in these 2 sets of proceedings, they would have issued the respective summons to intervene therein earlier.

50.  In the round, I think the just treatment is to apportion part of the respective set of costs of the OSPs and the Interveners as costs in the cause of the 5 Oses. Considering the matters alluded to above, I would so apportion 40% of the costs as being fairly treated as costs in the cause; and to order the OSPs to pay to the Interveners 60% of their set of costs, with certificate for one counsel.

51.  Mr Wong asked, and the OSPs resisted, that the OSPs should also pay the costs of the 3 Respective Occupiers, including their costs in contesting the OSPs’ 5 Notices of Appeal. I would not so order. The 3 Respective Occupiers hitherto did not inform the Registrar their status as sub-lease tenants of the Interveners. They did not file proper Notices to Act. They did not file affirmation evidence confirming their status and locus. They were equivocal on this occasion concerning being joined as defendants. Yet, they appeared by counsel and lodged a 13-page written submissions arguing for the Interveners’ joinder application and the dismissal of the OSPs’ appeals. In my view and in the circumstances, those are not properly the fight of the 3 Respective Occupiers. As occupiers who hitherto have not shown cause to be a proper party, their reasonable stance should be: if the Interveners win and the Stay is maintained, all the merrier, if the Stay is lifted, then they should clarify and confirm their status, state their stance whether they would submit to the 5 OSes or resist by filing affirmation evidence and such. Thus, though the Stay is essentially maintained, in my view, it is not just for the OSPs to have to pay the 3 Respective Occupiers their costs for entering a fight not really theirs, nor is it just for the 3 Respective Occupiers under such circumstances to expect to be able to recoup such costs from the OSPs.

52.  Therefore, I would order that such costs of the 3 Respective Occupiers, only limited to costs reasonably incurred as if this hearing were a directions hearing for them, be costs in the cause of the respective 3 sets of proceedings, with certificate for counsel.

Conclusion and Disposal

53.  For these reasons, I formally dismiss the OSPs’ 5 Notices of Appeal in the 5 OSes and allow the Interveners’ 3 Notices of Cross Appeal and accede to the Interveners’ 1^st and 2^nd Batches Summonses to the extent of giving the order for stay as set out in [39] and the orders for joinder and leave to amend the 5 OSes as set out in [41], [42] and [43] above. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not disturb the Registrar’s order giving liberty to apply and reserving the costs up to and including the hearing before her on 8 April 2025.

54.  In respect of costs, I order/direct:

(a) The costs of the 5 Notices of Appeal filed by the OSPs, of the 3 Notices of Cross Appeal filed by the Interveners and of the Interveners’ 1^st and 2^nd Batches Summonses to be treated as one set of costs, and if need arises, to be divided equally and be allocated to each of the 5 OSes;

(b) The OSPs do pay the Interveners 60% of their set of costs, with certificate for counsel, to be summarily assessed on papers, for that purpose, within 14 days the Interveners lodge and serve their Statement of Costs (again treating these costs as one set of costs), the OSPs their List of Objections within 14 days thereafter, and the Interveners’ Reply, if any, 7 days thereafter;

(c) 40% of the respective sets of costs incurred by the OSPs and the Interveners, with certificate for counsel, be costs in the cause of the 5 OSes; and

(d) The costs of the 3 Respective Occupiers, only limited to costs reasonably incurred as if this hearing were a directions hearing for them and with certificate for counsel, be costs in the cause of the corresponding OS in which each of the 3 Respective Occupiers is joined as a defendant;

55.  Lastly, I thank all counsel for their helpful assistance.