Wong Dock Jung v. Lau Kit Lin and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2790/1972 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The 2nd defendant applies under Order 15 rules 5 and 6 to be struck out from the writ and all subsequent proceedings on the grounds that they have been improperly or unnecessarily made a party.
|
HCA002790/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG ORIGINAL JURISDICTION -----------------
----------------- Coram: Registrar Jones in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 23rd January 1973. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. The 2nd defendant applies under Order 15 rules 5 and 6 to be struck out from the writ and all subsequent proceedings on the grounds that they have been improperly or unnecessarily made a party. 2. The plaintiff alleges that in or about March 1971 in consideration of the 1st defendant's oral agreement to marry him and to live with him in the United States he transferred US$10,349.40 from his savings account to a joint savings account in the joint names of himself and the 1st defendant with the Mongkok branch of the 2nd defendant bank. The plaintiff married the 1st defendant on the 25th May 1972 but the 1st defendant refused to consummate the marriage or to return to live with the plaintiff in the United States. The plaintiff therefore claims that as the consideration for the agreement has wholly failed, he is solely entitled to the joint savings account to the exclusion of the 1st defendant. 3. An order that judgment be entered against the 1st defendant was made on the 17th January 1973 whereby it was declared that the plaintiff is solely entitled to the joint savings account to the exclusion of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant was ordered to return the account book to the plaintiff forthwith. Judgment in the terms of the order was entered on the 19th January 1973. The injunction prayed for against the 1st defendant was not proceeded with. 4. The only claim against the 2nd defendant is for an injunction restraining them from making any payment out from the account pending the determination of this action or until further order. However, there is no allegation that the 2nd defendant has committed any wrongful or unlawful act. The 2nd defendant bank could only deal with the account in favour of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as a joint account until the mandate is cancelled or the Court orders otherwise. As submitted by Mr. Zimmern for the 2nd defendant the dispute in the action with regard to ownership of the account is between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant with which the 2nd defendant is not concerned. The 2nd defendant is merely an interested onlooker, not a necessary party to the action. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the 2nd defendant so that the 2nd defendant is entitled to an order in the terms of the summons. There will be an order for costs in favour of the 2nd defendant with a certificate for counsel. 5. Dated this 23rd day of January, 1973.
Representation: |