The Incorporated Owners of Kan Oke v. Lee Yiu Kei and Another

HCMP 33/2014

[2020] HKCFI 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 33 OF 2014

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Lok J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  28 March 2019

Date of Decision:  6 January 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is an appeal brought by the Defendants against the order of Master A Ho dated 28 September 2018 (“the Order”).

2.This case arises out of a simple claim for unpaid contribution for renovation fund.  The Plaintiff is the incorporated owners of a building, and the Defendants are the owners of one of the units of such building (“the Property”).  The Defendants had not paid the outstanding contribution for the renovation fund in respect of the Property and so the Plaintiff registered a Memorandum of Charge against the Property (“the Memorandum”).  In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claims for the outstanding sum due under the Memorandum.

3.The proceedings had been commenced in 2014.  Unfortunately, the Defendants had issued a number of unnecessary summonses and brought a number of unsuccessful appeals against the orders of various Masters, and as a result the proceedings had been delayed considerably.

4.On 5 April 2016, Master Hui finally gave an order authorising the sale of the Property if the Defendants still refused to pay for the outstanding contribution.

5.On 22 July 2016, DHCJ Saunders made an order to stay the execution of the order for sale of the Property to give time to the Plaintiff to bank-in 56 cheques issued by the Defendants.

6.After that, there was dispute between the parties as to the payment of the remaining interest and legal costs incurred by the Plaintiff.

7.On 7 July 2017, Master J Wong made an order that, unless the Defendants do pay the sum of $49,572.09 being remaining outstanding interest on or before 7 August 2017, the stay of execution ordered by DHCJ Saunders be lifted.

8.On 17 July 2018, the Defendants took out a summons to stay the execution of the order of Master Hui dated 5 April 2016 as amended on 16 January 2017 “until all omitted page numbers in the 2 said orders of 5 April 2016 and 16 January 2017 are added.”

9.On 28 September 2018, Master Ho dismissed the said summons and ordered the Defendants to pay costs of the Plaintiff summarily assessed in the sum of $650.

10.The Defendants now seek to appeal against the Order of Master Ho which, in my judgment, is totally groundless.

11.From the outset, I must say that the Defendants have all along conducted the case in a vexatious manner.  Throughout the proceedings, they have issued repetitive groundless applications with a view to strike out the Originating Summons or to stay the execution of the order for sale which are totally without substance.  It is easy for the court to lose track of all the applications taken out by the Defendants, and navigation through the court file to find out what really happened is a painful exercise.

12.The same applies to the Plaintiff’s summons dated 17 July 2018.  The only complaint is that there are no page numbers in the relevant orders.  So far as I am aware, there is no specific requirement both in the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) or in the Practice Directions for page numbers to be inserted in the bottom of each page of a court order, though I agree that it is a good practice to do so.  In any event, such minor technicality should not affect the validity of the orders made on 5 April 2016 and 16 January 2017.  The orders sealed by the court truly reflect the orders made by Master Hui on 5 April 2016 and 16 January 2017 and so the appeal is a hopeless one.  Neither can the Defendants complain that the costs order made by Master Ho is an unreasonable one.

13.For the above reasons, I dismiss the appeal.  I have listened to the parties’ submissions on costs.  As costs should follow the events, I order that the Defendants do pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this appeal.

Mr J Wong, of S K Lam, Alfred Chan & Co, for the Plaintiff

The Defendants, in person, present