HUI LUI v. HO CHEUK CHAN AND OTHERS

HCA 641/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO. 641 OF 1999

____________

____________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1. This is an application for a declaration that a partnership formed in or about 1984 between the Plaintiff and the three Defendants for the purpose of a restaurant was dissolved in or about June 1992 when the restaurant ceased business and the business came to an end. What is also sought is an order that the Plaintiff or any other person as the court deems fit be appointed receiver.

2. In relation to the evidence, it is quite clear that the restaurant which was the undertaking entered into by the Plaintiff and the three Defendants had come to an end. The sole purpose of this application is so that an amount of money which has been left in a bank account could be retrieved and distributed amongst the partners.

3. In relation to the three Defendants, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have indicated that they have no objection to the orders sought. The problem is with the 1st Defendant who has not replied to any of the correspondence from the Plaintiff. In relation to the 1st Defendant, there is an affirmation of a Lai Kwan Ying, an employee of the Plaintiff, who has deposed on affirmation that he had called the 1st Defendant on the telephone and had been told by the 1st Defendant that she did not wish to be bothered with the restaurant even though it had been explained to her that there was money in the bank account to be distributed. The 1st Defendant has refused to have anything to do with the matter. Since February or March 1998, the 1st Defendant has not spoken to Mr. Lai.

4. On the last occasion when this matter came before me, I had examined the papers and found that in relation to the business registration papers, there was another person whose name has been included as a partner and that was a Madam Chung Kim Ping. Madam Chung has since filed an affirmation to the effect that she had retired from the partnership about 6 months after 1986 and she has no explanation as to why her name still appears in the business registration record. As far as she remembers, she has signed all the relevant documents for her retirement as a partner and had instructed a service company to file the documents. She had been under the impression that all procedures had been completed. In any event, Madam Chung confirms that she has no interest of any kind in the partnership, nor does she have any claims whatsoever.

5. In the circumstances, the 1st Defendant not having appeared, notwithstanding service of the proceedings upon her, I would make an order in terms of paragraph 1 and I would appoint the Plaintiff as the Receiver.