Leung Kwai Ling, L v. Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1568/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 July 2012.
1. This was the plaintiff’s appeal against the Master’s order dated 19 March 2012 striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the action with costs to be assessed summarily. She however did not appear before me at the hearing on 17 July 2012. I dismissed the appeal with costs assessed summarily at HK$20,000. These are the reasons for my decision.
|
HCA1568/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1568 OF 2011 ------------------------
---------------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DECISION ---------------------------------------------------- 1.This was the plaintiff’s appeal against the Master’s order dated 19 March 2012 striking out the statement of claim and dismissing the action with costs to be assessed summarily. She however did not appear before me at the hearing on 17 July 2012. I dismissed the appeal with costs assessed summarily at HK$20,000. These are the reasons for my decision. 2.At all material times, the plaintiff and her husband were the joint owners of Flat 13B, Block B, and Car Park No 57 on Lower Ground Floor, Lai Sing Court, 13-15 Tai Hang Road, Hong Kong (“the Property”). The site upon which Lai Sing Court was situated underwent redevelopment. Pursuant to a Development Agreement dated 1 May 2001 made between the Developer and the Majority Owner including the plaintiff and her husband, compensation was paid to each of the Majority Owner in accordance with the compensation package as recorded in the Development Agreement. 3.On 14 September 2011, the plaintiff commenced the present proceedings, claiming for the lost funds in the distribution of auction sale proceeds for the Property with interest; compensation for too low a share of profit for her from the redevelopment project; damages for the defendants’ failure to negotiate higher compensation, higher profit share and better terms for her in the redevelopment project; damages for psychological sufferings in having to face the problems related to those claims, the long waiting time of the project and some unfavourable terms of the Development Agreement. Her claims exceeded HK$81 million. But the plaintiff had not pleaded a single incident or fact in the statement of claim to justify or support her staggering claims. On this ground alone, the statement of claim was liable to be struck out. 4.The plaintiff’s evidence, which was not easy to understand, did not take her case any further. I do not think I need to detail her allegations for present purposes. For they had all been comprehensively dealt with by the 3rd affirmation of Kong Churk Hoi Billy filed on 20 February 2012, which I had read and accepted. 5.I fully agreed with the Master that the plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. He was entirely correct in making the order as he did. I therefore dismissed the appeal. 6.Costs should follow the event. Ms Wong asked that costs be summarily assessed. Having considered the skeleton bill that she submitted, I assessed the costs at HK$20,000.
The plaintiff, in person, absent Ms Wong Pak Lung, of Wilkinson & Grist, for the defendants | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1568/2011