The Kik Lok Tung Benevolent Society, Ltd v. The Personal Representatives of Lam Chi Tin, Deceased

HCA 1574/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1574 OF 2021

______________

BETWEEN

(By Original Writ)

AND BETWEEN

(By Order to carry on proceedings dated the 5^th day of December 2024)

______________

____________________________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________________________

A.  Introduction

1.By summons dated 16 March 2026, the Plaintiff applied to strike out parts of paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 of the witness statement of Madam Lam Suet Po Ada, which was filed on behalf of the Defendant, on the ground that the same are scandalous.

2.On 12 May 2026, a master (the “Master”) dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.

3.By notice of appeal dated 26 May 2026, this is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Master’s decision.

4.It is trite that an appeal from a master’s decision to a judge in chambers is a de novo hearing, and the judge will deal with the matter in question as if it came before him or her for the first time: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure (2026) at para 58/1/2.

B.  Material Background of the Present Action

B1.  The Properties and the Parties

5.This action concerns the beneficial ownership of (i) Unit D, 48^th Floor, Tower 2, Les Saisons, No 28 Tai On Street, Hong Kong; and (ii) Car Parking Space No 37 on Ground Floor, Les Saisons, No 28 Tai On Street, Hong Kong (collectively the “Properties”).

6.The Plaintiff is (i) a company limited by guarantee and (ii) a charitable organization. The Plaintiff operates a Taoist church.

7.Mr Lam Chi Tin (the “Deceased”) had been (i) a director of the Plaintiff since 1979 and (ii) the chairman of the Plaintiff’s board of directors since 1997. He passed away on 12 September 2020.

8.The Properties have been registered in the name of the Deceased since 2000 and 2002.

B2.  The Plaintiff’s Case

9.According to the Plaintiff:-

(1)  It provided the funds for purchasing the Properties back in 2000 and 2002.

(2)  The Deceased acknowledged that the Plaintiff was the one who provided the funds for purchasing the Properties.

(3)  The title deeds of the Properties have all along been kept at the Plaintiff’s office.

(4)  The Plaintiff defrayed all the expenses relating to the Properties, such as Government rents/rates, management fees, utilities expenses, etc.

(5)  The Deceased had, in the presence of Madam Cheung Shuk Ling (“Madam Cheung”), acknowledged to other directors of the Plaintiff that he held the Properties for the Plaintiff.

(6)  When the Deceased was seriously ill, he took steps to transfer the Properties to the Plaintiff.

10.In the premises, the Plaintiff contends that the Properties have been held by the Deceased on a common intention constructive trust, or alternatively a resulting trust, for itself.

B3.  The Case of the Deceased/Madam Lam

11.Madam Lam Suet Po Ada (“Madam Lam”) is the Deceased’s niece. She is the administratrix of the Deceased’s estate.

12.It is Madam Lam’s case that the Deceased is the sole legal and beneficial owner of the Properties.

13.According to Madam Lam, in light of the Deceased’s past and future services rendered to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff purchased the Properties for the Deceased and defrayed the outgoings relating to the Properties in lieu of payment of the Deceased’s remuneration and retirement pension.

14.Madam Lam also seeks to rely on the doctrines of laches and section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance.

C.  The Role of Madam Cheung

15.Madam Cheung is now a director of the Plaintiff. She filed a witness statement dated 3 February 2026 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

16.According to Madam Cheung’s witness statement:-

(1)  She has participated in the affairs of the Plaintiff as a volunteer since 1982. She has been responsible for taking care of elderly members of the Plaintiff with fragile health condition.

(2)  Her husband encouraged her to participate in the affairs of the Plaintiff, and they performed volunteer works together.

(3)  In around 1997, she became the Plaintiff’s full-time assistant.

(4)  In around 1998, in order to take care of the Deceased whose health condition was unsatisfactory, she and her husband allowed the Deceased to live together with them. However, the Deceased moved out later as he did not wish to trouble her and her family.

(5)  She was involved in the process of purchasing the Properties.

(6)  The Deceased had confirmed with her that the funds for purchasing the Properties emanated from the Plaintiff. The Deceased had also said that when he passed away, the Properties would have to be returned to the Plaintiff.

(7)  All along, the Plaintiff defrayed all the expenses relating to the Properties, including Government rents/rates, management fees, utilities, renovation/reparation expenses, etc.

(8)  There were occasions in 2015, 2019, and 2020 when the Deceased was hospitalized. During each of these occasions, the Deceased said that it was necessary to transfer the Properties back to the Plaintiff.

(9)  In June 2020, the Deceased was hospitalized. He instructed her to contact a representative of a law firm to prepare legal documents to transfer the Properties to the Plaintiff. However, the Deceased passed away in September 2020 before the process was completed.

D.  The Offending Contents of Madam Lam’s Witness Statement

17.In Madam Lam’s witness statement, she made various allegations regarding the personal life of Madam Cheung as well as her relationship with the Deceased:-

(1)  In paragraph 17, Madam Lam alleged that Madam Cheung confided in both the Deceased and her that she was unhappy with her marriage with her husband, and she had the intention to divorce him.

(2)  In paragraph 18, Madam Lam alleged that the relationship between the Deceased and Madam Cheung had become very intimate. Madam Cheung would visit the Deceased at the Plaintiff’s premises (in Causeway Bay) for personal purposes on multiple occasions. Madam Lam also alleged that she knew that Madam Cheung and the Deceased occasionally stayed together at the Plaintiff’s other premises (in Sai Wan Ho).

(3)  In paragraph 20, Madam Lam described Madam Cheung as the Deceased’s “intimate friend”.

18.The Plaintiff takes issue with the aforesaid contents of Madam Lam’s witness statement. The Plaintiff contends that they are scandalous.

E.  Legal Principles

19.In Sun Legend Investments Ltd v Ho Yuk Wah (2011) 14 HKCFAR 541 at paras 57 to 58, Litton NPJ pointed out that a civil case is a trial of the issues put before the court, not a trial of the characters of the parties. Hence, generally speaking, evidence of facts and circumstances to show the disposition of a party is inadmissible.

20.In Wong Luen Hang & Anor v Chan Yuk Lung & Ors (HCA 2654/2007, 29 August 2008) at para 13, Fung J stated:-

“The Court has a general jurisdiction to expunge scandalous matters in any record or proceedings. Allegations of dishonesty, immorality and outrageous conduct are not scandalous if relevant or necessary to any issue in the action. But if they are irrelevant or are for the sole purpose of abusing or prejudicing the other party, or if though relevant, unnecessary details are given, the pleading becomes scandalous and liable to be struck out (see Hong Kong Civil Practice 2008, Vol. 1, para. 18/19/7, citing Christie v Christie (1873) LR 8 Ch App 499; Blake v Albion Assurance Society (1876) 45 LJCP 663; and Brooking v Maudslay (1886) 55 LT 343).”

21.In Talent Weaving Dyeing & Printing Ltd v Able Billion Textiles Ltd [2013] 2 HKLRD 479 at para 5(a)-(b), Registrar Lung (citing Wong Luen Hang v Chan Yuk Lung (supra)) also pointed out that the court has jurisdiction to strike out or expunge any scandalous matters in witness statements, and evidence that bears no relevance to the pleaded issue in dispute is scandalous and inadmissible. They are hence liable to be struck out.

F.  Deliberation

22.I have carefully studied the witness statement of Madam Lam. In my view, in paragraphs 17, 18, and 20, Madam Lam did allege that:-

(1)  Madam Cheung’s marriage with her husband was an unhappy one, and she did have the intention to divorce him.

(2)  Madam Cheung did have an intimate relationship with the Deceased. In this connection, there were multiple occasions where they spent time alone at the premises of the Plaintiff for private purposes.

23.I am unable to see how these allegations are relevant to the substantive issues in dispute in the present action.

24.This action is concerned with the beneficial ownership of the Properties. It appears to me that the core issues to be resolved by the court at trial are:-

(1)  whether there was a common intention between the Plaintiff and the Deceased that the Property should belong to the Plaintiff beneficially?

(2)  whether the Deceased wished to transfer the Properties to the Plaintiff before his demise?

(3)  whether the Plaintiff provided the funds for purchasing or acquiring the Properties?

(4)  whether the Plaintiff defrayed the expenses of the Properties throughout the years?

(5)  whether the Plaintiff purchased the Properties for the Deceased and paid for the outgoings relating to the Properties in lieu of payment of the Deceased’s remuneration and retirement pension?

(6)  whether the Plaintiff is precluded from bringing the claims in this action by reason of laches and/or the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance?

25.I cannot see how Madam Lam’s allegations would shed light on the aforesaid issues in dispute. Madam Cheung’s relationship with the Deceased sheds no light on the common intention and/or understanding between the Deceased and the Plaintiff with regard to the ownership of the Properties. Even if (i) Madam Cheung’s marriage with her husband were an unhappy one as alleged, and (ii) Madam Cheung had an intimate relationship with the Deceased as alleged, it does not follow that:-

(1)  the common intention between the Plaintiff and the Deceased was such that the Deceased should be the sole beneficial owner of the Property;

(2)  the Deceased had no intention to transfer the Property to the Plaintiff before his demise;

(3)  the Plaintiff had never provided the funds for purchasing or acquiring the Properties;

(4)  the Plaintiff had never defrayed the expenses relating to the Property;

(5)  the Plaintiff purchased the Properties for the Deceased and paid for the outgoings relating to the Properties in lieu of payment of the Deceased’s remuneration and retirement pension; and

(6)  the defence based on the doctrines of laches and/or the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance would succeed.

26.I am also of the view that Madam Lam’s allegations shed no light on the credibility of Madam Cheung. Even if (i) Madam Cheung’s marriage with her husband were an unhappy one as alleged, and (ii) Madam Cheung had an intimate relationship with the Deceased as alleged, it does not follow that the court should ipso facto reject Madam Cheung’s evidence or place less weight on Madam Cheung’s evidence. This simply does not follow.

27.All in all, I am unable to discern any legitimate reason why Madam Lam would wish to flag up Madam Cheung’s marriage with her husband as well as the alleged intimate relationship between Madam Cheung and the Deceased as issues in these proceedings. There is an overwhelming impression that Madam Lam is simply seeking to denigrate the character of Madam Cheung and to embarrass her.

28.This is an impermissible attempt. As pointed out, a civil court tries issues, not characters: see Sun Legend Investments Ltd v Ho Yuk Wah (supra) at paras 57 to 58.

29.For all the above reasons, I conclude that the relevant parts of paragraphs 17, 18, and 20 of Madam Lam’s witness statement (in respect of which the Plaintiff takes issues) are irrelevant and hence are liable to be struck out on the ground that they are scandalous.

G.  Disposition

30.I accordingly allow the Plaintiff’s appeal and set aside the Master’s order dated 26 May 2026.

31.I further make an order in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Plaintiff’s summons dated 16 March 2026.

32.Costs should follow the event.

33.I order Madam Lam to pay the Plaintiff’s costs in respect of the summons dated 16 March 2026, including the costs of the present appeal, to be summarily assessed by this court on paper.

34.The Plaintiff shall lodge and serve its statement of costs within 7 days, and Madam Lam shall lodge and serve its statement in opposition within 7 days thereafter.

35.I thank Mr Ronald Tang, Ms Carmen Kei, and Ms Nydia Yeung for their helpful assistance.

Mr Ronald Tang and Ms Carmen Kei, instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm LLP, for the Plaintiff

Ms Nydia Yeung, instructed by Simon Ho & Co. Solicitors, for the Defendant