Tang Pool Lap v. Tang Kam Kai and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 761/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 March 2004.
1. The only issue in this case is identity. It is whether the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning is Tang Poon Lap. I will deal with the background and details of this only issue below.
|
(Translation approved by trial judge) HCA761/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONCOURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CIVIL JURISDICTION ACTION NO.761 OF 1996 ------------------------------ BETWEEN
--------------------- Before : Hon Yam J in Court Dates of Hearing : 23 – 26 February and 1 March 2004 Date of Judgment : 1 March 2004 Date of Written Judgment : 28 April 2005 ------------------------ J U D G M E N T ------------------------ The issue of this case 1.The only issue in this case is identity. It is whether the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning is Tang Poon Lap. I will deal with the background and details of this only issue below. Background 2.This case involves Wing Lung Wai Village of the Tang clan in Kam Tin. Wing Lung Wai Community is the ancestral tso or tong (祖堂) established by Tang Ching Lok, the 17th generation ancestor of the Tang clan. Tang Ching Lok Tso is consisted of three fongs (房) : the fong of Tang Ching Lok’s 3rd son Tang Wan Yeung (transliteration), the fong of the 4th son Tang Wan Yu (transliteration) and the fong of Tang Wo Chung (transliteration) who was a descendent of the 3rd younger brother of Tang Ching Lok. The three fongs jointly funded the establishment of Wing Lung Wai Community and formed Wing Lung Wai Village. Therefore, the descendents of the three fongs are entitled to the so-called “household membership” in Wing Lung Wai Community and to enjoy any benefits thereof. However, the aforesaid Tang Wan Yeung, Tang Wan Yu and Tang Wo Chung all maintain their own individual ancestral tongs. 3.According to the tradition of Wing Lung Wai Community, the ancestral house is to pass down from father to son, from son to grandson, from one generation to another. According to the rule recognised by the Community, no one is allowed to sell, or even rent, the ancestral houses to outsiders. All the male descendents on the male side of Wing Lung Wai Community are entitled to enjoy the rights and benefits of Wing Lung Wai Community. When a male descendent reaches 16 and after he gets married, he can register his own household membership to enjoy the benefits of the Community. Moreover, as the plaintiff said in examination-in-chief, in the case of an only son who is not yet married, he will automatically succeed to his father’s membership after the father passes away. 4.According to the Births Register of the Male Descendents (it was dated in Yuet Yau year, which is 1985 AD), Tang Poon Lap was born in Wing Lung Wai Village on 15 September 1938. He is the only son of Tang Tat Yi and Lee Ying Tai while Tang Tat Yi is the only son of Tang Chun Sau. Tang Chun Sau was one of the descendents of Tang Ching Lok Tso as well as a member of Wing Lung Wai Community. Naturally, Tang Tat Yi, the father of Tang Poon Lap, also became a member of Wing Lung Wai Community. His ancestral houses comprised house Nos.103, 104 and 106 of Wing Lung Wai, apart from that, he owned some other lands too. 5.None of the defendants dispute the above facts. What the defendants dispute is whether the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning is Tang Poon Lap, who was born on 15 September 1938 in Wing Lung Wai Village. The plaintiff Tang Tak Ning’s case 6.The plaintiff claims himself to be Tang Poon Lap. He was born during the Sino-Japanese war. His parents died one after another during the subsequent Japanese invasion of Hong Kong. He was taken care of by his grandmother Lam Kam Tai (i.e. the wife of Tang Chun Sau). His grandmother was too old to cultivate crops, so the two of them had to maintain a living by begging. Subsequently, due to food shortage in the area they lived, life became extremely difficult and it was impossible to live by begging any more. Therefore, his grandmother brought him back to the mainland in order to seek refuge with relatives. At that time, he was about seven years old. 7.Unfortunately, after the ravages of war, things on the mainland had changed beyond recognition. The two of them roamed around and eventually arrived at a small town in Bao An County where they sought lodging at a monastery. Master Sau Yeung, the abbot of the monastery, then gave him the name “Tak Ning”. 8.The plaintiff produced a “certificate” in respect of the above two incidents. The certificate was issued by the head of Tian Xia Village in Bao An County on 23 June 1985. Three stamps and signatures by three individuals were affixed to the certificate, namely Zhan Shu Pei, the head of Tian Xia Village of Xi Xiang District in Bao An County, Strategic Pass Cooperative Association of the Village Committee and Liang Huo Cai, a committee member of Tian Xia Village. 9.Before this certificate came into existence, certain events occurred which led to the signing of this certificate. In 1982, the plaintiff had a chance to come to Hong Kong from the mainland to trade in some materials. He also took this opportunity to take his eldest son Tang Wai Lam (transliteration) and his 2nd son Tang Moon Lam (transliteration) to Wing Lung Wai to look for his ancestral house at No.106 in Wing Lung Wai. At that time, they managed to see Tang Kam Kai, the registered manager of Wing Lung Wai Community, and Mr Tang Wing Sau (transliteration), the representative of Wing Lung Wai Village as well as the head of the Tang clan in Kam Tin. Tang Kam Kai is the 1st defendant of this case. 10.At that time, the plaintiff had the photo of his grandmother Ms Lam Kam Tai with him. The plaintiff claimed that both Tang Kam Kai and Tang Wing Sau were able to recognise that the person in the photo was Lam Kam Tai. To verify whether he was the Tang Poon Lap who was born and grew up in Wing Lung Wai, Tang Kam Kai and Tang Wing Sau tested the plaintiff’s knowledge and recollection of the surrounding areas of Wing Lung Wai. The plaintiff said that he was able to give detailed and correct answers to all the questions put to him by Tang Kam Kai and Tang Wing Sau, for instance, there was a river flowing under a small bridge across the area in front of the gate to Wing Lung Wai, the pond was planted with lotus and water caltrop on both sides, there was an orchard garden near the premises where Tang Pui Hon lived, etc. 11.Head of the clan, Mr Tang Wing Sau, told the plaintiff that in the following year after the war ended, that was about 1946, the Hong Kong Government demanded tax which was supposed to be paid by Tang Tat Yi. Since no one made such payment, Tang Pak Kau JP personally handed the tax coupons in the name of Tang Tat Yi to Tang Wing Sau for him to submit them to the Yuen Long Land Office. Next year, however, when he tried to pay the tax, he found that someone had already paid the tax supposed to be paid by Tang Tat Yi. It was also discovered that some brothers in the village had encroached on the land and houses registered under the name of Tang Tat Yi. Those people even leased out a certain portion of the land and houses to others in return for rent. That being the case, Tang Wing Sau suggested that the plaintiff should return to Wing Lung Wai as soon as possible to come into his inheritance. He also agreed to render assistance to the plaintiff in his application for coming to settle in Hong Kong. 12.On 3 February 1982, Tang Wing Sau wrote to the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau of Bao An County in the mainland to ask for permission to be given to Tang Poon Lap to go back to settle in his place of origin with his wife and sons. But according to that letter, Tang Poon Lap was also known as Tang Tak Nang (能). Following that, on 8 February, Tang Wing Sau wrote as the head representative of Wing Lung Wai Village and head of the Tang clan to the Director General of Shenzhen Public Security Bureau to ask for permission to be given Tang Poon Lap to come to Hong Kong to handle various registration formalities at the Land Office and to inherit the houses and land in Wing Lung Wai Village from his late father. 13.Tang Wing Sau wrote to the plaintiff again on 7 March 1984, urging him to come to Hong Kong to handle the formalities concerning the transfer of title as mentioned above. Tang Wing Sau wrote another letter to the Public Security Bureau of Shenzhen on 30 March 1984 to confirm that the plaintiff was the only son of Tang Tat Yi as well as the only descendent of the 3rd fong of Tang Ching Lok Tso, calling on the bureau to grant leave to the plaintiff’s application to come to Hong Kong to deal with the inheritance of the estates of his late father. In these letters, Mr Tang Wing Sau called the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning, “also known as Poon Lap”. 14.On 2 and 3 January 1985, Mr Tang Wing Sau, in his capacity as the representative of Kam Tin Wing Lung Wai, wrote jointly with Mr Tang Chi Leung, chairman of the Kam Tin Rural Committee, to the United Front Work Department of the Political Consultative Conference of Shenzhen to give an account of the plaintiff’s background which was mentioned above. They issued a confirmation letter on 4 February 1985 to confirm that the plaintiff was Tang Tak Ning, the only son of Tang Tat Yi and he was also known as Tang Poon Lap. 15.Eventually, the plaintiff came back to Wing Lung Wai in Kam Tin, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong on 1 February 1985 by virtue of a PRC permit for travelling to and from Hong Kong. In the plaintiff’s PRC Entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao, the name of the holder was Tang Tak Ning. 16.After the plaintiff’s arrival in Hong Kong, a meeting among the village elders was held right away in the ancestral hall of Tang Ching Lok Tso. Being head of the clan, Chairman Mr Tang Wing Sau stated the life history of the plaintiff. According to the minutes, the matter concerning the descendent of Tang Wan Yeung Tso, the son of Tang Tat Yi in the name of Poon Lap, also known as Tak (得) Ning, was on the agenda for the meeting held at 11:30 a.m. on 9 February 1985, which was a Saturday. The number of people present was about 23. After Chairman Mr Tang had stated the life history of the plaintiff, a resolution was passed that “HK$20,000 from Tang Ching Lok Tso is to be paid to the father (i.e. the plaintiff) and sons and it is specified that the fund is exclusively for repairing the ancestral house and lantern lighting and it shall not be taken to the mainland and spent there. Tang Kam Kai and his brothers will collect the money on their behalf and deal with it.” The resolution was passed unanimously and Tang Kam Kai (i.e. the 1st defendant) was also present. 17.Another item on the agenda concerning the estates of Tang Tat Yi was also dealt with. A resolution was passed that the elders and the head of the clan were to provide evidence to the government and to make application for the inheritance of properties. The brothers in the village who had been occupying the property concerned agreed to deliver up possession of the property, but they asked for a grace period. This matter was left to be dealt with by the elders and brothers of the village through negotiations. The meeting was concluded at 12:30 p.m. 18.After the meeting, Mr Tang issued a confirmation letter in the capacity of the head of the clan and the representative of the village on 24 March 1985 to confirm that Tang Tak Ning and Tang Poon Lap were the same person, the events happened between his birth in the wai village and the aforesaid village elders meetings were briefly mentioned. The 1st defendant Mr Tang Kam Kai signed in the confirmation letter as witness. 19.On 9 April, Mr Tang Chi Leung, in the capacity of the Chairman of Kam Tin Rural Committee, issued a three-page confirmation letter to confirm that the plaintiff as Tang Poon Lap and he was a descendent of Tang Chun Sau. This was a letter requesting the Hong Kong Immigration Department to extend Tang Tak Ning’s stay in Hong Kong so that he could deal with the formalities for the inheritance of Tang Tat Yi’s properties. 20.On 12 April 1985, Mr Tang Wing Sau and Tang Kam Kai, being the elders of Wing Lung Wai Village, issued a confirmation letter to confirm that Tang Tak Ning was Tang Poon Lap, he was born on 15 September 1938 in Wing Lung Wai Village in Kam Tin, his father was Tang Tat Yi and his mother was Ms Lee Ying Tai (transliteration); after the fall of Hong Kong, food was in short supply, so Tang Tak Ning followed his grandmother Lam Kam Tai to move from Hong Kong to the mainland China in 1946. He returned to Hong Kong on 1 February 1985. A meeting was held in the ancestral hall of Tang Ching Lok Tso and a resolution was passed unanimously confirming Tang Tak Ning and Tang Poon Lap were the same person, he was born in Hong Kong and had performed the lantern lighting ceremony in the ancestral hall of Tang Ching Lok Tso. 21.Furthermore, Tang Wing Sau made a declaration on 3 May 1985 to solemnly declare that the matters stated above were all true. Mr Tang Wing Sau was then 81 years old. His declaration was made before Lee Kan Shum (transliteration), a commissioner for oath of the Hong Kong Immigration Department. 22.Later, the plaintiff was granted a certificate issued by the three Chinese authorities mentioned above on 23 June 1985. 23.On 19 March 1986, the plaintiff received notification from the Yuen Long District Office that his application made on 4 February 1985 for the inheritance of Tang Tat Yi’s properties had been successful. The plaintiff signed a written consent for the acceptance of the inheritance in April. At that time, the plaintiff ’s signing of the consent was witnessed by Tang Kam Kai. On 27 May 1986, the plaintiff registered himself with the Yuen Long Land Registry as the lawful heir to Tang Tat Yi’s ancestral properties located in Lot Nos.429 and 453RP of D.D. No.109 and house Nos.103, 104 and 106. 24.In other words, according to the findings of the District Office and the way this matter was handled, the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning was accepted to be Tang Poon Lap. 25.The 3rd meeting for the year 1986 was held in Kam Tin Wing Lung Wai Community on 20 July 1986. The meeting was still chaired by Mr Tang Wing Sau. People present included Tang Kam Kai (D1), Tang Yu Hin (D2) and Tang Pui Hon (D3). 26.The minutes of the meeting show the discussion on item No.3 (on the agenda) as follows :
27.Tang Hong Wai is the son of Tang Yu Hin (D2). Tang Tak Ning alleged that he had been assaulted by Tang Hong Wai when he returned to the wai village. 28.As soon as the plaintiff inherited the properties registered under the name of Tang Tat Yi and made registration at the Land Office, he brought proceedings against the trespassers on his property. That case was Miscellaneous Proceedings No.2380 of 1986. Tang Pak Wing was the 3rd defendant of that case while D1 and D2 were his two tenants. The three were alleged to have trespassed on the land of the plaintiff at Lot. No.453 of D.D. 109. The case was heard on 7 October 1991 before Nazareth J (as he then was). D3 withdrew his counterclaim during the trial and agreed to the plaintiff’s allegation against him. He was also willing to deliver up possession of the premises and to pay compensation. Eventually the court made a final order which was consented by both parties. I happened to be the master assessing the pecuniary loss suffered by the plaintiff. I delivered judgment on 11 May 1992. I assessed that the compensation payable to the plaintiff by D3 for his trespass on the plaintiff’s property was $218,492. 29.The plaintiff registered himself as the inheritor of the above property and brought proceedings against Tang Pak Wing in 1986. The plaintiff attended a meeting in the village office of Wing Lung Wai on 20 July 1986. When the restoration of his “household membership” was being discussed, Tang Pak Wing and his brother Tang Chung Wah (transliteration), the trespassers on the plaintiff’s property, raised their objection. They even created a scene in the meeting room, eventually the meeting had to be terminated because of the disruption. 30.According to the plaintiff, he was a descendent of Tang Wan Yeung Tso, but his admission application was denied and rejected by the descendents of Tang Wan Yu Tso. The reason for that was the conflict of interests. As it has been said that Tang Pak Wing and his brother Tang Chung Wah are the descendents of Tang Wan Yu Tso, they had been trespassing on the property of Tang Tat Yi. With the consent of Tang Wing Sau, the head of Wing Lung Wai Village, the plaintiff entered the ancestral house at No.106 Wing Lung Wai for repairing work together with his two sons on 16 October 1986. However, the three of them were assaulted and injured by the trespassers on their property. The case was heard on 12 December 1986 in Fanling Magistrates’ Court. The assailants were subsequently convicted. 31.On 19 October 1986, the plaintiff wrote to the brothers of Wing Lung Wai again, and asked them to give their signatures in support of the restoration of his household membership. Consequently, about 11 signatures from the Wing Lung Wai brothers were collected, including those of Tang Pui Hon (D3) and Tang Hin Yu (D4). The letter of signatures was produced in court. In other words, D1, D3 and D4 had recognized either directly or indirectly that the plaintiff Tang Tak Ning and Tang Poon Lap were the same person and they had agreed to the restoration of his “household membership” in Wing Lung Wai Village. 32.Since 5 September 1987, the plaintiff received various sums of money from the ancestral hall of Tang Ching Lok Tso as follows :
33.On 22 March 1999, Tang Chi Leung and Tang Kin Lam, Chairman and Vice-chairman of Kam Tin Rural Committee respectively, wrote to the Yuen Long District Office to confirm that the plaintiff was indeed a descendent of Tang Ching Lok Tso and he was Tang Poon Lap. The defence case 34.The defendants pleaded in the previous defence that the registered managers had absolute discretion to accept or refuse any applications for membership in Wing Lung Wai Community. Subsequently, it was found that this argument was wholly untenable in law. Furthermore, all the defendants have agreed that if Tang Tak Ning is Tang Poon Lap, then he is a descendent of Tang Ching Lok Tso and is entitled to the membership of Wing Lung Wai Community and to enjoy the benefits thereof in accordance with the tradition of Wing Lung Wai Community. In the circumstances, the defendants accepted at the commencement of the trial that the absolute discretion or the so-called “unfettered power to accept or refuse membership admission” is untenable in law. 35.That being so, the only defence left to the defendants was to require the plaintiff to prove that he was Tang Poon Lap. They could only try to prove the version of the plaintiff to be unreliable or incredible through their cross-examination. Furthermore, counsel for the defendants was of the view that the plaintiff’s standard of proof should be higher than the normal civil case standard, i.e. the standard of the balance of probabilities. As I cannot see in what way this case is different from other civil cases, I reject counsel’s submission. 36.Having said all that, I fully appreciate the plight of the counsel for the defendants and have sympathy for him. Nothing in the witness statements of the defendants could directly disprove the plaintiff’s version. The cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel was no more than what the legal profession calls a “fishing exercise” in a bid to discredit the plaintiff’s case. However, as things turned out, counsel could only cross-examine on some trivial issues, hoping that the plaintiff would make mistakes or did not remember correctly what he had said earlier in his evidence due to old age and severe memory loss. However, the evidence of the plaintiff was essentially consistent and comprehensive. He did not change the evidence about his life history which he had always asserted. Indeed, it is remarkable that he could still remember the past events so clearly at his age. 37.The defendants alleged that the plaintiff was just putting up a show when he took out his grandmother’s photo and cried in court. It was not a true feeling. When the plaintiff took out a sketch of his grandmother and explained in tears that it was made from a black and white photo, as the original was no longer available, I could clearly feel that he was showing his true feeling. Noting that the plaintiff’s parents died when he was still a small child, he managed to survive the war only because his grandmother struggled to raise him. He was thus extremely close to his grandmother. It is not surprising that he burst out crying when he talked about the passing away of his grandmother in court. I do think that such behaviour is normal and is an expression of true feelings. It is not “putting up a show” as suggested by counsel in his submission. 38.That being the case, I accept that the plaintiff is an honest and reliable witness and I accept his evidence. The attitude of the defence witnesses 39.The defendants called two witnesses to give evidence, the first one is Tang Hon Keung and the second one is Tang Pak Wing. The original written statement of Tang Hon Keung had mentioned the absolute power of Wing Lung Wai Community, i.e. the right to refuse or accept the application of anyone for membership in Wing Lung Wai Community. This argument had been completely withdrawn at the beginning of this trial. 40.Looking at the written statements of Tang Hon Keung as a whole, there is nothing in the contents which directly touches upon the issue of whether Tang Tak Ning was Tang Poon Lap. Counsel for the defendants sought to suggest that Mr Tang Wing Sau’s recognition of Tang Tak Ning as Tang Poon Lap was unreliable by repeatedly asking Tang Hon Keung in re-examination the things that he saw or heard about Tang Tak Ning or Tang Poon Lap when he was young. But in the absence of any documentary proof, hearsay evidence could hardly be adduced for the purpose of providing another version to supplement the written statements. Furthermore, one of the events he heard happened between 1938 and 1945, which was before his birth. Tang Hon Keung was only born in 1952. 41.Therefore, Tang Hon Keung observed strict neutrality when he expressed his views. Although he was a village representative, he did not side with any party. He is the son of Tang Kam Kai (D1). He admitted that D1, D3 and D4 had recognised the plaintiff as Tang Poon Lap either directly or indirectly. 42.DW2 is Tang Pak Wing. He was born in Wing Lung Wai in 1920. He is currently a duty manager of Wing Lung Wai Community managing all the records, including the books of the Community. In others words, he is in charge of the finances of the Community. 43.Tang Pak Wing said in catagorical terms in his written statement that if the plaintiff is a descendent of Tang Tat Yi, he would be entitled to membership of the Community. This is not something he would deny. Originally he also said that membership required recognition by registered managers and members, but paragraph 12 of the written statement was later withdrawn. Therefore, he strongly opposed to the plaintiff’s application for becoming a member in the Community just because he believed that Tang Tak Ning falsely claimed to be Tang Poon Lap. 44.In his oral evidence, he said that the meeting attended by the registered managers of Wing Lung Wai Community held on 20 April 1992 was supposed to discuss the application of Tang Poon Lap, also known as Tang Tak Ning, for membership in the Community. He said since the members present could not be sure if Tang Tak Ning and Tang Poon Lap were the same person, no conclusion could be reached and it was agreed that the Community should seek further legal advice. 45.The second witness was 85 years old when he gave evidence. His father is Tang Chi Cheong (transliteration). At the beginning of his testimony, especially at the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr Tang Pak Wing’s evidence was a little confusing due to his age. For example, he initially said that Wing Lung Wai was established in 1962 or 1950. But neither of them is correct. Having been reminded several times, he finally agreed that Wing Lung Wai had already been established in 1900. 46.As a duty manager, it is Mr Tang’s duty to keep records of the accounts. Though he said in cross-examination that it was the clerk who dealt with it, he admitted that it was done under his supervision. He would point out to the clerk the mistakes he spotted in the records which were shown to him. The records contained in pages 80–89 in Document Bundle 4 in relation to the amounts each household member was allocated were all true. He did not directly say that they were accurate, but he nevertheless agreed that he had read the accounts and he did not point out any mistakes to the clerk. 47.In my view, the testimony of Mr Tang Pak Wing is very confusing. He mainly wanted to say that Tang Tak Ning and Tang Poon Lap were not the same person. However, as I have pointed out, he was one of the trespassers on the land of Tang Tat Yi’s descendent (i.e. Tang Poon Lap). Counsel for the plaintiff also said, Tang Pak Wing showed bias in the minutes of meeting he prepared for the meeting dated 5 April 2001 (see BD page 79). It is not something written by a person who adopted a neutral stance. Likewise, the resolution “firmly refusing (the person called Tang Tak Ning) posing as Wing Lung Wai” (it is so written in the original; it means the plaintiff was an impersonator) was passed because of self-interest. 48.Further, Tang Pak Wing made many accusations in his testimony which were never mentioned before. Say for instance, in examination-in-chief, he only mentioned that the topknot of the plaintiff’s grandmother was not one commonly seen in the village. However, under cross-examination, he added other things which he thought were discrepancies. Supposedly, when he saw the photo, he should be able to tell at a glance the differences, but he did not say so until a later stage. In fact, as counsel for the plaintiff said, as time went by, the looks of Ms Lam before and after the war must of course be rather different. 49.For the reasons given, I am not satisfied that Tang Pak Wing is an honest and reliable witness. Conclusion 50.The plaintiff said there was sufficient evidence to prove that he was Tang Poon Lap, such evidence included the confirmation letters and the direct and indirect recognition given by D1, D3 and D4. Furthermore, Tang Wing Sau had accepted that Tang Tak Ning was Tang Poon Lap and assisted the plaintiff to make various applications. The plaintiff was also accepted and allowed by the Yuen Long District Office to register as a descendent of Tang Tat Yi and the heir to the estates. In fact, this was the ground the plaintiff relied upon to bring action against Tang Pak Wing and others for trespassing on his properties and the plaintiff was awarded pecuniary compensation. 51.In this case, the strongest opposition came from Tang Pak Wing and his party. He refused to accept the plaintiff as a member of Wing Lung Wai Community. His opposition is an attempt to protect his own interest, which is in no way an objective attitude. I therefore agree with the submission by counsel for the plaintiff that the attacks on the plaintiff by the defendants could not change the fact about the true identity of the plaintiff. 52.Accordingly, I order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff for all the claims in the Statement of Claims. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff is entitled to membership of the Community. It is my advice to everyone in the Community that matters should be resolved through proper legal channels without resorting to violence. One should accept new members in the Community with a calm and peaceful attitude. It would be in everybody’s interest if everyone can live in perfect harmony in the days to come.
Mr C. Y. Li, instructed by Messrs Peter Lau & Co., for the Plaintiff Mr George Chu, instructed by Messrs Leung Kin & Co., for the Defendants Appeal by Defendant to Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Please refer to the appeal judgment of CACV99/2004. |
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 761/1996