Wong Tai Wan v. Lam Chi May Bessie

HCMP 986/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 986 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers (Open to the Public)

Date of Hearing: 15 November 2018

Date of Decision: 15 November 2018

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.I am not going to repeat what could be seen from the court documents as well as the written submissions of Mr Chain. Suffice it for me to say that the two lots of land in question formed the subject matter of a legal dispute back in 1974. In Action No. 1655 of 1974, the plaintiff there, surnamed Lai, claimed against the defendants there, Choi and Lam, for specific performance of a sale and purchase agreement in relation to the two lots. In 18 December 1975, judgment was obtained by Lai against Choi and Lam. Because of the non-compliance with the judgment by Choi and Lam, Lai managed to obtain the order from the court so that the Registrar executed the necessary conveyance of the two lots of lands to Lai, and that happened in 1976 July. Then in 2006, Lai assigned the lots of land to the plaintiff in the present case.

2.All along, all the parties involved at different stages, including the court, did not come to realise that in fact unbeknownst to the parties to the 1974 action, Choi actually assigned to the defendant in the present case the two lots of land.  I have considered the circumstances and I have no doubt that had the parties or the court then come to know about the existence of such conveyance, the defendant in the present case would have been joined in that action so that that conveyance could be disposed of, and then the defendant could also be heard.

3.Now, the opportunity for the defendant to be heard has been made available in the present case.  Although the evidence suggests that the defendant could not be located, there was the order for substituted service of these proceedings on the defendant.  No appearance has been entered. The evidence also suggests that apparently the defendant was the daughter of Choi and Lam, and that actually added to the suspicion about the purported conveyance by Choi and Lam to the defendant back in 1974 just days after the commencement of that action.  

4.There is nothing to contradict the evidence that the plaintiff in the present case has been in exclusive possession of the two lots of land since 1976, and in these circumstances, I see no reason why the order sought should not be granted.  In the circumstances, I would also grant, first of all, the order stated in paragraph 3 [1] of the originating summons as well as paragraph 1 [2] of the originating summons, and following that, an order stated in paragraph 2 [3] of the originating summons. As indicated, I will give no order as to costs.

Mr Benjamin Chain, instructed by Pansy Leung Tang & Chua, for the plaintiff

The defendant was not represented and did not appear