Faith Luck Corporation Ltd and Another v. Tin Yau Nung

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 603/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 November 2018.

1. The service of the Originating Summons was not valid under Order 10, rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court. The plaintiffs’ solicitors only attempted to serve the Originating Summons by leaving the document at the subject land, which was not any of the three prescribed methods under Order 10, rule 1. Therefore, the Court could not proceed to deal with the Originating Summons in any way today.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCMP 603/2018[2018] HKCFI 2531
Court
High Court CFI
Date12 Nov 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 603/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 603 OF 2018

_____________

  IN THE MATTER of Lot No 1984 in Demarcation District No 51, North, New Territories (“the Land”)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of section 6 of the Partition Ordinance (Cap 352)

_____________

BETWEEN    
  FAITH LUCK CORPORATION LIMITED
(信祥有限公司)
1st Plaintiff
  WIN MILLION INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(宏懋國際有限公司)
2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  TIN YAU NUNG (田友濃)  Defendant

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Kenneth Wong in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 12 November 2018
Date of Decision: 12 November 2018

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.The service of the Originating Summons was not valid under Order 10, rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court. The plaintiffs’ solicitors only attempted to serve the Originating Summons by leaving the document at the subject land, which was not any of the three prescribed methods under Order 10, rule 1. Therefore, the Court could not proceed to deal with the Originating Summons in any way today.

2.The plaintiffs’ solicitors should not have issued the Notice of Appointment of the hearing today at all before the service has been properly made.  Given that the hearing today is completely wasted, and also that the defectiveness of the service of the Originating Summons has been so plain and apparent, in the absence of any sufficient explanation from Mr Nicholas Oh, counsel for the plaintiffs, I am mined to order that the costs of the plaintiffs’ solicitors incurred for the hearing today, save only those costs of counsel for the plaintiffs incurred in preparation for submission on the substantive merits of the plaintiffs’ application for order for sale, shall not be charged by the plaintiffs’ solicitors towards the plaintiffs.

3.As between the plaintiffs and the defendant, I shall make no order as to costs in respect of the hearing today.

4.Having dealt with the question of costs, I shall adjourn the directions hearing today to another date with 30 minutes reserved, but such hearing shall only be fixed after the Originating Summons has been duly served.


 

  (Kenneth Wong)
  Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Nicholas Oh, instructed by Terry Yeung & Lai, for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs

The defendant was not represented and did not appear

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 603/2018