Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank and Another v. Tse Choi Nuen and Another

HCMP000098/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 98 OF 1970

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Blair-Kerr, Mills-Owens and Huggins, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 21 December 1970

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is a motion for committal for breach of an injunction granted by a District Judge. By the terms of the injunction the respondents were restrained from entering or remaining upon specified land, belonging to the applicants as trustees and situated in the New Territories. The respondents being in occupation of the land a further Order, limiting the time for compliance with the injunction to one month from the date of the further Order, was made on 6th August 1970.

2. The first respondent appears in person. The second respondent, who is his wife, has not appeared. We are told that on two occasions in the District Court they were offered legal aid but refused. Before us the first respondent has said that he does not want professional assistance.

3. The respondents entered upon the land under a tenancy granted to them by some person called WONG Pang, who had no title to the land. It was decided as long ago as November 1969 by the District Court that the true owner is the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (Trustee) Limited in its capacity as trustee of the estate of a deceased person. The respondents have not seen fit to appeal against that decision and before us the first respondent appears to accept the correctness of it. As trustees the bank have a legal obligation to manage the land in the interests of the beneficiaries and in due course to wind up the estate. As the bank have decided to recover possession in order to wind up the estate we have no alternative but to lend the court's assistance to eject the respondents if necessary. They have been offered an ex gratia payment to assist them in removing their structures and their stock, but they refused to accept it. We also offered to the first respondent a suspension of the committal order we proposed to make, in order to give him an opportunity of removing the structures and his chickens, but he has told the court that he has no intention of utilising any period of suspension which we might order for the vacation of the land. We do not want to send him to prison but he leaves us with no alternative and we order his committal forthwith for his contempt in disobeying the orders of the District Court that he, with his wife, cease to remain on the land.

4. As to the second respondent we propose to make a committal order in respect of her also, but we direct that the order lie in the office until 31st January 1971 to give her an opportunity to dispose of the structures and live chickens to the best advantage. If she has vacated the land by that date the committal order will not be enforced against her.

5. Having delivered this judgment we gave the first respondent a final opportunity to give an undertaking that if we were to suspend the committal order against him he would utilise the period of suspension to vacate the land but he continued to assert his unwillingness to leave the land until he had been paid compensation. We informed him of his right to apply for his discharge when he had purged his contempt by obeying the orders of the judge.

Representation:

C. Ching (Philip Remedies) for Appellant.

1st Respondent in person.

2nd Respondent not appearing.