United Kesvick Ltd v. Tsang Wing Fai and Others

HCA 804/2019

[2020] HKCFI 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 804 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Blair in Chambers

Date of Plaintiff’s Written submission:  5 February 2020

Date of 1^st Defendant’s Written submission:  19, 20 March 2020

Date of Ruling:  22 April 2020

________________________

R U L I N G

________________________

1.This ruling relates to a letter to the Court dated 5 February 2020 from Hugill & Ip asking whether paragraph 10 of the draft order submitted for approval on 7 January 2020 should be included in the order as made.  The question arises because it includes a claim for damages in the event that the documents referred to are not delivered up (see the underlined passage of paragraph 10 as set out in the letter).  I refused other similar relief relating to other aspects of the claim on the grounds that the application for damages etc was made too late. However, as pointed out in the letter, this particular relief was already included in the Summons.

2.The 1st Defendant (who is unrepresented) has filed a careful letter on behalf of all defendants objecting on various grounds. His main point is that he has already delivered up the documents, a point which he raised during the hearing.

3.I have dealt with this issue in paragraph 16 of the second judgment I gave on 3 January 2020:

16.  I shall give judgment as asked noting however that I have no doubt that the administratrix will not take up time or money on documents that are unnecessary to prove title and achieve a sale, because the 1st defendant, on the face of it, has given a reasonable explanation given the age of some of these documents and that may be enough.

17.  The order should therefore include the underlined words, but I confidently expect that those responsible for the administration of the estate will comply with both the letter and spirit of the judgment in this regard.

18.  The 1st Defendant also submits that no order at all should be made because the Administratrix has resigned, and has not been replaced. I do not know what current position is in this respect. However, I dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraph 8 of the second judgment I gave on 3 January 2020. I have nothing to add to what I said there.

Written submission  by Hugill & Ip, for the plaintiff

Written submission by the 1st defendant