|
HCMP003350/1998
HCMP 3350/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3350 OF 1998
______________
|
IN THE MATTER of ALL THOSE 19, 790/520, 688th parts or shares of and in 21/400th parts or shares of and in Kowloon Inland Lot No. 10253 (Unit 123 on 1st Floor of the Mall (to be known as Sim City (Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor)) of Chung Kiu Commercial Building, Nos. 47-51 Shantung Street, Kowloon) ("the 1st property"); and ALL THOSE 19, 917/520, 688th parts or shares of and in 21/400th parts or shares of and in Kowloon Inland Lot No. 10253 (Unit 136 on 1st Floor of the Mall (to be known as Sim City (Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor)) of Chung Kiu Commercial Building, Nos. 47-51 Shantung Street, Kowloon) ("the 2nd property");
and
IN THE MATTER of a Legal Charge in respect of the 1st Property dated 15th September 1997 made between WONG KING SING (黃景盛) as the Chargor of the first part and TECHPEOPLE COMPUTER STORE as the Principal of the second part and THE CHINA STATE BANK LIMITED as the Lender of the third part and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 7317215 (re-registered by Memorial No. 7459748) ("the 1st Legal Charge"); and a Legal Charge in respect of the 2nd Property dated 15th September 1997 made between CHOI KAI CHEUNG (蔡啟章) and WONG KING FU (黃景富) as the Chargor of the first part and TECHPEOPLE COMPUTER STORE as the Principal of the second part and THE CHINA STATE BANK LIMITED as the Lender of the third part and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 7317217 ("the 2nd Legal Charge");
and
IN THE MATTER of Order 88 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4
|
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
THE CHINA STATE BANK LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
WONG KING SING (黃景盛) |
1st Defendant |
|
|
|
|
CHOI KAI CHEUNG (蔡啟章)
and WONG KING FU (黃景富) |
2nd Defendant |
______________
Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Seagroatt in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 7 October 1999
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 11 October 1999
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Master Jones who refused the Plaintiff's application to have part of the Defence of the second named 2nd Defendant struck out. The Summons before the Master did not identify what part of the Defence the Plaintiff wanted struck out. The Master did however see in the pleading an inconsistency between paragraph 8 and paragraph 16 (iii) so he gave leave to the Defendant to amend his Defence by striking out the last four words of §16(iii). The Notice of Appeal simply repeats the original application and still does not identify the alleged offending part of the Defence. There is no appeal against the leave to amend.
2. I therefore asked Mr. Justin Wang who appears for the appellant Plaintiff to identify the part of the Defence which he wanted struck out. He referred to paragraphs 20 and 21. Paragraph 21 is easily dealt with. It is no more than an otiose and archaic bit of pleading (the 'seriatim traverse') which pleaders of Defences would do well to avoid in any event. Paragraph 20 is a denial of liability "to the Plaintiff as claimed or at all". The Defence pleads duress, undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud though not all in explicit terms. This paragraph is merely a composite denial of the Plaintiff's allegations as they presently exist or may exist at some future stage (i.e. if the Plaintiff amends its claim) I cannot see any logic in the Plaintiff's action.
3. Mr. Wang went on to explain that what the Plaintiff was trying to do was obtain an order for possession of the second property against the second named 2nd Defendant on the basis that since that Defendant had given no value or consideration for it (it is in the name of the second Defendants jointly) he has no legal interest.
4. Whatever issues the Plaintiff seeks to establish, and they are by no means clear from this appeal, it has no sensible or logical ground in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with an order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants costs in any event.
|
(Conrad Seagroatt) |
|
Judge of the High Court |
Representation:
Mr. Justin Wang instructed by Messrs. Wat & Co. for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Lam Shun Chiu instructed by Messrs. Wong Fung & Co. for the second named 2nd Defendant.
|