Yang Yuen Luk v. Hsiao Hsiu Yang

HCMP1307/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1307 OF 2000

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Fung in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 27 January 2005

Date of Decision : 27 January 2005

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.The defendant is applying to strike out the claim for want of prosecution.

2.I shall not repeat the facts.  They are stated out in the chronology of events as submitted by the defendant’s solicitors.

3.On 19 January 2005 the defendant took out the summons herein after the action has been let to sleep after the last callover hearing before Yuen J (as she then was) on 23 March 2001. On 16 February 2004 the defendant changed to the present solicitors.  No further action was taken either.

4.In November 2004, the defendant’s solicitors wrote a letter to the plaintiff exploring the prospect of settlement, but they have received no reply until now.  Today the solicitor for the plaintiff appeared and asked for time, 14 days to file affirmations in opposition.  The present solicitor mainly blamed the inaction on the part of the former solicitors.  But as to why no action had been taken since March last, they said they had no instructions to proceed.  Up to now, what they had done was discussions with the plaintiff so as to advise on the merits of the case.

5.Solicitor for the plaintiff was asked to outline the facts and what possible merits the plaintiff had.  He could tell me nothing. It seems to me no concrete action has ever been taken by the present solicitor, even as to familiarising himself with the facts of the case, let alone as to merit of the plaintiff’s claim.

6.The defendant alleged that they had been prevented from selling the property by reason of the registration of lis pendens, and they asked for the action to be dismissed for want of prosecution.  By reason of the inaction on the part of the plaintiff and by reason of the inaction taken by the plaintiff’s solicitor, that is inability to indicate to the court of what possible grounds of objection or what possible merits of the case, the case is dismissed for want of prosecution.

7.Costs of the action be to the defendant.

Mr Lawrence Yeung, of Messrs Yu, Chan & Yeung, for the Plaintiff

Mr Howard Wong, of Messrs Yam & Co., for the Defendant