Szeto Kwok Hung Roque v. Szeto Kwok Kwong Bernard and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2596/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 April 2018.
1. There are two applications before me:
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCMP 2596/2017 [2018] HKCFI 1069 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2596 OF 2017 ______________
______________
______________
DECISION The application 1.There are two applications before me:
The background 2.The plaintiff has five brothers and sisters. Their mother is Madam Tang. She is now about 93 years of age. Her health has not been good. The plaintiff claims that she has not been adequately taken care of, and that some of his brothers and sisters have been trying to prevent him from having access to his mother. He took out the Originating Summons herein on 22 November 2017. He seeks an injunction against three of his brothers and sisters. He seeks to restrain them from (i) preventing Madam Tang from having contact with friends or family members, including in particular the plaintiff; (ii) seeking to persuade or coerce Madam Tang into agreeing to give a “do not resuscitate” direction to her medical doctors; (iii) interfering in the provision of care and support to Madam Tang; (iv) refusing Madam Tang access to health and social care professionals from Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital and/or medical professional of her choice; and (v) making any decision purportedly for Madam Tang and/or conducting themselves in any way which is detrimental to the interest, welfare and/or well-being of Madam Tang. 3.Also on 22 November 2017, the plaintiff attended before Mimmie Chan J and obtained on an ex parte basis an interlocutory injunction against the defendants (“the ex parte Injunction Order”). The three defendants were thereby restrained, until further order of the Court, from (i) preventing Madam Tang from having contact with the plaintiff or preventing the plaintiff from gaining access to her; (ii) interfering in the plaintiff’s provision of care and support to Madam Tang, and (iii) refusing Madam Tang access to health professionals of her choice. 4.On 28 November 2017, the plaintiff took out the Continuation Summons. The return date was 1 December 2017. On 30 November 2017, the 1st defendant filed his affidavit in opposition. 5.On 1 December 2017, the parties attended before L Chan J. The plaintiff appeared in person. The defendants were represented by Mr Remedios. At the conclusion of the hearing, L Chan J struck out paragraph (iii) of the ex parte Injunction Order. The reason was that Madam Tang had not been able to communicate with others. Paragraph (iii)was therefore useless. The plaintiff agreed to that. The ex parte Injunction Order was otherwise continued with some amendments, in the following terms (“the inter partes Injunction Order”), that:
Directions were also given to the parties for filing of further evidence. 6.Two matters about the inter partes Injunction Order should be noted:
The hearing of the Continuation Summons 7.The parties have, in compliance with the directions given by L Chan J, filed further evidence in support / opposition of the Continuation Summons. Despite those additional affidavits, Mr Remedios, who continued to appear for the defendants, helpfully confirmed in his written submissions that the defendants “do not objection to [the inter partes Injunction Order] being continued subject to one matter, namely that “any medical care and medical support provided by the Plaintiff to Madam Tang be paid for by the Plaintiff.” Mr Remedios seeks an order that paragraph 1.1.2 of the inter partes Injunction Order be amended accordingly through application of the slip rule. 8.The plaintiff continued to appear in person. In his written submissions, he indicated that Madam Tang had been responding positively towards the latest care and treatment which she received. He specifically said that “The injunction granted by the Hong Kong High Court had the desired effects on the defendants, and as a consequence my ninety-three-year-old Mother and I are very grateful that her near-death illness has subsided and is on her recovery phase.” 9.This morning, the plaintiff invited me to amend the inter partes Injunction Order by ordering that “the plaintiff is to make all the decisions on the medical care and health care of the plaintiff’s mother”. If I were to make that amendment, I would give the plaintiff the power to override not just all his siblings, but potentially all medical professionals. This power is far wider that the injunction which the plaintiff is seeking in the Originating Summons. I note that the plaintiff is not medically trained. I refuse to make the amendment. 10.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the inter partes Injunction Order in its current terms, subject to the addition of the words “any medical care and medical support provided by the Plaintiff to Madam Tang be paid for by the Plaintiff” at the end of paragraph 1.1.2, should be continued. The Directions Summons 11.I have considered the various affidavits filed by and on behalf of the parties. I have also considered the submissions of Mr Remedios and the plaintiff. There are indeed factual matters which are in dispute, and potentially hotly. They include whether the defendants had caused Madam Tang to have been discharged from hospital prematurely, whether the plaintiff had made threats to Madam Tang and the 1st defendant, whether the plaintiff had been denied access to Madam Tang whilst she was at her residence, whether the plaintiff had been refused access to Madam Tang’s medical records, and whether the defendants had otherwise provided adequate care to Madam Tang. These are all issues which cannot be appropriately adjudicated upon summarily on affidavit evidence only. I further note that in his written submissions, the plaintiff was still trying to offer evidence which has not been covered by his previous affidavits. All these will have to be tidied up so as to make the action trial ready. 12.I have considered the appropriate procedural options ahead. One alternative to ordering that the action be proceeded with as if commenced by writ is to order the attendance of witnesses for cross-examination. The action will become ready for trial earlier. Time is important, given the age of Madam Tang. On the other hand, given the imposition and continuation of the inter partes Injunction Order, and that the status quo appears to have been satisfactorily maintained, time pressure is slightly off. Given the extent of the dispute on facts, and the fact that the action was only commenced in late November last year, I am of the view on balance that I should accede to the defendants’ application and order that the action should be continued as if commenced by writ. I also made the directions sought in the Directions Summons. 13.I will hear the parties on costs.
The plaintiff appeared in person Mr Leo Remedios, instructed by Bernard Wong & Co, for the 1st to 3rd defendants | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2596/2017