Lam Mable v. World Place Ltd and Others

HCA 4699/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4699 OF 2001

____________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.An order for inspection has been made on the basis of the common views of the parties although not in the form of a consent order. The remaining argument is on costs of the application.

2.The defendants’ objection as can be understood from the correspondence exchanged in 2012 and the 3rd defendant’s affirmation in opposition is to the inspection itself rather than any entry by the plaintiff herself for the inspection.  The grounds stated are about the need to have such inspection, invasion of privacy and balance of convenience. 

3.If the defendants’ objection is indeed to the plaintiff’s entry personally, they could and would have made this plain. Judging from the previous correspondence, pleadings, affirmations and skeleton arguments emanating from the defendants, it is clear that the defendants have no difficulty in expressing their views and to do so with clarity. 

4.Furthermore, the plaintiff has already made plain by an affirmation of her solicitor filed and served on 2 November 2012 saying that the plaintiff herself is not seeking to enter the property.  If the plaintiff’s entry was the defendants’ worry, that affirmation would have removed the worry. 

5.If the defendants’ wanted the order to state clearly that the plaintiff was not going to enter the premises by herself, they could have said so then.  It is not right for them to keep quiet then and now say that the plaintiff should have amended the summons. 

6.If the defendants should have indicated earlier their agreement to an inspection by the plaintiff’s expert, but to the exclusion of the plaintiff, I am sure an order in those terms could have been made despite the terms of the summons.

7.I also take the view that a summons under Order 25 is appropriate for an application to inspect premises as inspection is also part of the management of a case and to make the case ready for trial. 

8.But for the imperfection of the summons in seeking an inspection by the plaintiff and/or her expert, I would have ordered costs against the defendants.  In the light of the imperfection, I order that costs of the summons be the plaintiff’s costs in the cause.

Mr Kelvin Liu, instructed by Choi & Liu, for the plaintiff

The 1st defendant appeared in person represented by the 3rd defendant

The 3rd defendant appeared in person

The 2nd defendant was not represented and did not appear