Wong Shun Oi v. Lo Wing Shun

HCA 2526/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2526 OF 2024

__________________

__________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.Before me is the Plaintiff’s Summons filed on 26 February 2025 for a default judgment that:-

“(i) a declaration that the Defendant holds the property situate at 中國廣州市荔灣區黃沙大道6號逸翠灣A8棟2604室 on trust and for the benefit of the Plaintiff, and an order for the Defendant to transfer the title of the said property held on trust for the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff;

(ii) damages to be assessed.”

2.For convenience, I shall refer to the subject property as the “PRC Property”.

II.  ANALYSIS

3.The second part of (i) above, namely, an order of transfer, is not something prayed for in the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim. On this alone, I refuse to make such an order.

4.Further and in any event, in respect of (i), it is based on a proprietary cause of action for the Plaintiff’s title and ownership of the property. As such, the governing law should be the PRC law: see 張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 and another v 張才奎 and another, HCA 1661, 1766 and 2191/2014, 13 May 2015 at §§87-90 per G Lam J. It is well accepted that the PRC law does not recognise the concept of beneficial ownership, and there is no plea to the contrary. Therefore, I see no basis to make an order in terms of (i).

5.During the hearing, Ms Tania Tse, counsel for the Plaintiff, asked for an adjournment so that the Plaintiff could amend the Writ and the Statement of Claim to put the matter in order. However, I cannot see what amendment the Plaintiff could make to salvage (i), and in any event, if there would be such amendment, the Plaintiff should then amend the Writ and the Statement of Claim, serve the Amended Writ and the Amended Statement of Claim, and issue a fresh Summons based on the amended documents. Therefore, I think it is more appropriate to dismiss paragraph (i) of the summons with no order as to costs.

6.In respect of (ii), in the light of my view above, Ms Tse sought an adjournment sine dine for the Plaintiff to consider whether still to pursue it or not. I grant the adjournment.

7.There shall be no order as to costs of the application save that the costs in respect of (ii) is reserved.

Ms Tania Tse, instructed by K.B. Chau & Co., for the Plaintiff

The Defendant was not represented and being absent