Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 313/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 313 OF 2015

____________

	IN THE MATTER of ALL THAT one equal undivided 450^th part or share of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as SECTION B OF MARINE LOT NO.301 AND of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as “JADE COURT (翡翠閣)” (“the Building”) TOGETHER with the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT FLAT “A-6” on the FOURTEENTH FLOOR of BLOCK A of the Building (“the Property”)
	and
	IN THE MATTER of the estate of Chan Yim Mei, late of Flat A6, 14^th Floor, Block A, Jade Court, Nos 48-49 Praya, Kennedy Town, Hong Kong, married woman, deceased
	and
	IN THE MATTER of the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap 73)

____________

BETWEEN
	CHOY PUI LAM	Plaintiff
	and
	CHAN WAI MAN	Defendant

____________

Before: Hon L Chan J in Court

Date of Hearing: 20 May 2015

Date of Delivery of Decision: 20 May 2015

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The proceedings are not a nullity under O 15 r 6(1). I order under O 15 r 6(2)(a) that Chan Wai Man do cease to be the defendant in these proceedings.

2.I further order under O 15 r 6A(1) that the personal representative of Chan Yim Mei, deceased, be the defendant in these proceedings.

3.The plaintiff’s summons filed on 19 May 2015 under O 15 rs 6, 6A and 15, and O 20 r 5 be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.

4.Madam Chan Wai Man should have informed the plaintiff at the latest by 28 April 2015 that the plaintiff had sued the wrong party and should have sued the estate of the deceased. She did not do that. She only made her point three days ago in counsel’s written opening. She thus laid an ambush for the plaintiff.

5.If the ambush should have benefited herself, then her conduct might not deserve any criticism. But her conduct did not. Her conduct was not conducive to the resolution of the dispute, which will have to be resolved on another occasion.

6.Her conduct has also resulted in waste of judicial resources and delayed the resolution of the dispute.

7.Such conduct is contrary to the spirit of the CJR and not to be encouraged.

8.If she should have informed the plaintiff of his error, she would have been dropped as the defendant and be given all costs of the proceedings, whether by consent or by order of court. She did not do so.

9.As I have said, such conduct is not to be encouraged.

10.I therefore make no order as to costs as between the plaintiff and her. I know that it is a harsh order, but I think a clear message must be sent.

	(Louis Chan)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Ms Gekko Lan, instructed by Chong & Partners, for the plaintiff

Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by Chak & Associates, for the defendant

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Choy Pui Lam v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of Chan Yim Mei, Deceased

HCMP 313/2015

High Court CFI30 Mar 2017

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 313/2015

Choy Pui Lam v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of Chan Yim Mei, Deceased

High Court CFI30 Mar 2017

Choy Pui Lam v. Chan Wai Man