Yeung Lai Sze Ritz (楊麗詩) (also known as Yeung Lai Sze (楊麗詩)), The Intended Personal Representative of the Estate of Yeung Kam (楊金) (also known as Yeung Kam (楊鑫)) v. Yeung Kin Pang (楊健鵬) and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 235/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 February 2023.

1. This interim interim injunction application is not very far from a blatant abuse of process. Plainly, there is no urgency which may justify an ex parte injunction to be made. That must be obvious to the Plaintiff. It appears to me that in an attempt to overcome the obstacle, the Plaintiff took out a Summons for inter parte injunction, fixed a 15 minute hearing and asked for an interim interim injunction at the 15 minute hearing.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCA 235/2023[2023] HKCFI 695
Court
High Court CFI
Date24 Feb 2023
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 235/2023

[2023] HKCFI 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 235 OF 2023

____________________

BETWEEN

YEUNG LAI SZE RITZ (楊麗詩) (also known as YEUNG LAI SZE (楊麗詩)), the intended personal representative of the estate of YEUNG KAM (楊金) (also known as YEUNG KAM (楊鑫)) Plaintiff
AND
YEUNG KIN PANG (楊健鵬) 1st Defendant
CHEUNG YIN LING ELLIE (張燕玲), the intended personal representative of the estate of YEUNG KAM (楊金) (also known as YEUNG KAM (楊鑫)) 2nd Defendant
ELSAN LIMITED (裕承有限公司) 3rd Defendant
YUK SING GARMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (旭昇製衣發展有限公司) 4th Defendant

____________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 24 February 2023
Date of Decision: 24 February 2023

________________

DECISION

________________

1.This interim interim injunction application is not very far from a blatant abuse of process. Plainly, there is no urgency which may justify an ex parte injunction to be made. That must be obvious to the Plaintiff. It appears to me that in an attempt to overcome the obstacle, the Plaintiff took out a Summons for inter parte injunction, fixed a 15 minute hearing and asked for an interim interim injunction at the 15 minute hearing.

2.The skeleton arguments lodged by the parties on this issue came to 20 pages of dense material with 15 authorities cited. This is an unfair burden on the court and should be discouraged. It must also be said that unfair occupation of the court’s time means that other court users had been deprived of the same.

3.I need only say a few words about the lack of merit of this application. First, there is no urgency. The share transfer in question was known to the Plaintiff since January 2022. Second, I fail to see any concrete evidence for the Plaintiff’s allegation of wrongdoings involved in the disposal of the shares by the deceased father to one of his sons. A disposal of assets by an aged parent to his child is commonplace.

4.I therefore dismiss the application and I shall hear the parties on costs.

  ( Anthony Chan )
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Ms Teresa Wu and Mr Joshua Yeung, instructed by So, Lung & Associates, for the Plaintiff

Ms Prisca Cheung and Mr Johnathan Tsang, instructed by Kwok Hei Law Office, for the 1st Defendant

The 2nd Defendant, was not represented and did not appear

The 3rd Defendant, was not represented and did not appear

The 4th Defendant, was not represented and did not appear