The Incorporated Owners of Tai Kut House v. Pang Chun Cheong
Read the full judgment text of HCA 10076/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 July 1999.
1. I have heard Mr Cheung for the Plaintiff and Mr Brian Wong who was allowed by me to speak on behalf of the Defendant, Mr Pang. Mr Wong has very persuasively put the Defendant's case and he has asked me not to order costs of today's hearing against Mr Pang.
|
HCA010076/1999 HCA10076/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.10076 OF 1999 ----------------
---------------- Coram : Mr Recorder Kotewall, S.C. in Chambers Dates of hearing : 29 July 1999 Date of judgment : 29 July 1999 ------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------- 1. I have heard Mr Cheung for the Plaintiff and Mr Brian Wong who was allowed by me to speak on behalf of the Defendant, Mr Pang. Mr Wong has very persuasively put the Defendant's case and he has asked me not to order costs of today's hearing against Mr Pang. 2. Mr Cheung reminds me that the management had written to the Defendant on 31st March 1998. That was followed up by his firm's demand letter of 24th April 1998, and the writ was issued in June of this year; none of which prompted the Defendant's response until the taking out of the inter partes summons of 19th July 1999 at which point the Defendant did what was required and demolished the air-conditioner and removed the clothes hanging frame from outside his premises. 3. Mr Wong tells me, and I accept, that the reason that the Defendant had not responded earlier was simply because he did not realize the importance and gravity of these structures in breach of the relevant terms of the Deed of Mutual Covenant. Mr Cheung's retort was that even on the photographs provided this morning, it is clear that the demolition did not take place until yesterday, and he was fully entitled and obliged to come today before me before he can obtain all the orders he seeks ― including an injunction for the future with the necessary penal notices to be endorsed on the orders to be granted. 4. I have given this matter some thought and I have been troubled by it. In the end I believe that Mr Cheung is justified in coming before me today and the order that I shall make is as follows :
5. I accept the undertaking offered by the Defendant and in view of that undertaking, I would not order an injunction against the Defendant. The undertaking is in these terms :
Representation: Mr Y.K. Cheung of M/s Van Langenberg & Lau, for the Plaintiff Defendant in person, present and represented by Mr Brian Wong Kar Yan |