|
HCMP 1084/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1084 OF 2008
__________________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF a Property comprised in a First Legal Charge dated 18th September 1997 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 7308915, namely, Flat D, 20th Floor, Profit Mansion, No. 23 Fei Fung Street, Kowloon
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Order 88 rule 1 and Order 28 of the Rules of the High Court
|
__________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
YU FUNG COMPANY LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
AND |
|
| |
OLYMPIC CITY PROPERTIES LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
LAI MING TAK TOMMY ALEXANDER |
2nd Defendant |
| |
AND |
|
| |
EVENT CHEUNG CHUI KWAN |
Interested Party |
AND
HCA 3104/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 3104 OF 2015
__________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
CHEUNG CHUI KWAN EVENT |
Plaintiff |
| |
AND |
|
| |
HEBEI INVESTMENT LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
YU FUNG COMPANY LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
__________________
(Heard Together)
| Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: 7 June 2017 |
| Date of Decision: 7 June 2017 |
__________________
D E C I S I O N
__________________
1. I am grateful for counsel’s succinctness in their submissions.
2. The issues in the intended appeal can be boiled down to the single question whether Madam Cheung is only entitled to ventilate her adverse possession claim under the original proceedings as opposed to starting a fresh set of proceedings.
3. It is a highly important issue because of the impact on the chances of success of the adverse possession claim.
4. Despite Mr Vaughan’s attractive submissions, I am unable to see why the learned Deputy High Court Judge Keith had erred in distinguishing Chan Kwok Chu v Gotland Enterprises Ltd, HCA 282/2015, 6 January 2016. The critical point in the distinction is that Madam Cheung was not a party to the original proceedings, and there is no reason to force her to join in the same which would likely result in the defeat of her adverse possession claim by reason of the relation back principle.
5. With respect, I am unable to agree that the intended appeal is reasonably arguable and I therefore dismiss this application with costs to Madam Cheung.
| |
(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Joseph Vaughan, instructed by Gallant, for the Plaintiff in HCMP 1084/2008 and the 2nd Defendant in HCA 3104/2015
Mr Jonathan Chang and Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Dundons, for the Interested Party in HCMP 1084/2008 and the Plaintiff in HCA 3104/2015
|