LUCKY POWER LTD v. LAM, PHILIP YUNG TAK and/or other occupiers AND ANOTHER

HCA 481/2012 &
HCA 1785/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 481 OF 2012

_______________

BETWEEN

AND

ACTION NO 1785 OF 2012
_______________

_______________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  I have before me a summons taken out by the defendants dated 15 December 2016 seeking an extension of 60 days for them to comply with the plaintiff’s notice for recovery of vacant possession of the Remaining Portion of Lot No 48 in DD 212 and the Remaining Portion of Lot No 49 in DD 212 (collectively “the Lots”)in respect of which this court has made an order requiring them to deliver up vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff.

2.  The basic facts of this case have been set out in a written judgment handed down on 27 July 2015 and a further written decision handed down on 12 October 2016, and I shall not repeat them here.

3.  On 2 December 2016, I dismissed the defendants’ application by summons dated 21 November 2016 seeking a stay of execution of the said judgment and decision pending appeal.

4.  On 12 December 2016, the plaintiff gave written notice to the defendants requiring them to vacate the Lots by 19 December 2016, stating that in default the plaintiff would proceed to recover possession upon the court order without further notice.

5.  In Mr Lam’s affirmation filed in support of the present application, Mr Lam states that there are, at present, some on-going works and arrangements on the adjourning land referred to as “the Government old Tenancy Land”, and the defendants have difficulties in vacating the Lots on or before 19 December 2016.

6.  This morning, Mr Lam further informed the court that:-

(1)   the Lots are currently being used by him for purpose of storage; and

(2)   he has paid a “licence” or waiver” fee to the Government for certain structures erected upon the Lots which covers a period beyond 19 December 2016, and he should not be required to vacate the Lots prior to the expiration of the period for which the fee has been paid.

7.  In my view, none of the reasons advanced by Mr Lam can begin to justify a stay of execution of the order, which effectively is the relief now being sought by the defendants.  In view of the fact that the Lots are currently being used for the purpose of storage, I am unable to see what real difficulties the defendants may have in delivering up vacant possession of the Lots to the plaintiff.

8.  I therefore dismiss the defendants’ summons dated 15 December 2016 with costs to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.