Billion Star Development Ltd v Wong Tak Chuen And Others

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date07 Feb 2014
Judgement NumberFAMV38/2013
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)
FAMV38/2013 BILLION STAR DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG TAK CHUEN AND OTHERS

FAMV No. 38 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.38 OF 2013 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 49 OF 2012)

________________________

BETWEEN

BILLION STAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
(Respondent)
and
WONG TAK CHUEN (王德全) 1st Defendant
YIP SIU CHAU (葉少舟) 2nd Defendant
LO CHUNG CHEONG (盧松昌) 3rd Defendant
CHEUNG CHI YIN (張志賢) 4th Defendant
LEE WAI KUEN (李慧娟) 5th Defendant
YU WAI KAN (余慧根) 6th Defendant
PERSONS ENTERING OR REMAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF AT THE REMAINING PORTION OF NEW KOWLOON MARINE LOT NO 25 AND SECTION B OF NEW KOWLOON MARINE LOT NO 25 AND OTHER PERSONS INTERFERING WITH THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE PRIVATE ROADS IN MEI FOO SUN CHUEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTIES 7th Defendant
TSANG KIN SHING (曾健成) 8th Defendant (Applicant)
LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄) 9th Defendant
MO MAN CHING CLAUDIA (毛孟靜) 10th Defendant

________________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Chan NPJ
Date of Hearing and Determination: 28 January 2014
Date of Reasons for Determination: 7 February 2014

________________________________

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

________________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ :

1. At the hearing, we dismissed this application without calling on the respondent and now provide our reasons for doing so.

2. The respondent is the owner of a property within the residential estate known as Mei Foo Sun Chuen. It was engaged in the construction of a residential block on the property in accordance with approved building plans. Certain residents of neighbouring blocks objected to the development and organized themselves into a protest group which, during March and April 2011, physically blocked the only access road (over which the respondent had a right of way) leading to the property, thus preventing the respondent’s contractors from doing the construction work. There is no doubt that the protesters’ conduct constituted acts of trespass and nuisance against the respondent and its property.

3. On 20 April 2011, the respondent issued proceedings in the High Court and sought interlocutory and final injunctive relief against the protesters. It was able to identify six of them who were nearby residents and named them individually in the writ as the 1st to 6th defendants. It also named as the “7th defendant” a class of persons described as persons “entering or remaining without the consent of the plaintiff [on the property] and other persons interfering with the plaintiff’s right of way over the [relevant roads] in connection with the protests against the plaintiff’s proposed development ...”

4. The present applicant was not and is not a resident of the estate. However, he took part in the protests and, at the first hearing of the respondent’s application for an interlocutory injunction, he identified himself to the Court as being, or coming within the class of persons listed as, the 7th defendant. The plaintiff therefore obtained an order that he be joined as a party, naming him as an individual 8th defendant.[1]

5. Although the applicant objected to this, he filed a defence, filed affidavit evidence and instructed leading counsel to resist the respondent’s application for summary judgment and for injunctive relief, asserting that he had participated...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT