Great Perprect Investment Ltd v Leung Yat Wah And Others

Judgment Date05 June 1990
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCA5915/1989
Subject MatterCivil Action
HCA005915/1989 GREAT PERPRECT INVESTMENT LTD v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS

HCA005915/1989

1989, No. A5915, A5916, and A5917

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

-------------------

BETWEEN

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

LEUNG YAT WAH, CHEN CHIEN LIN and CHAN KWAI YING alias WENDY CHAN trading as KIN WAI BLEACHING & DYEING FACTORY

Defendants

(by Original action)

AND BETWEEN

LEUNG YAT WAH, CHEN CHIEN LIN and CHAN KWAI YING alias WENDY CHAN trading as KIN WAI BLEACHING & DYEING FACTORY

Plaintiffs

AND

YING FUNG DISTILLERY LIMITED

1st Defendant

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

RICHARD BRYSON and MICHAEL C. SETO formerly trading as RICHARD BRYSON & COMPANY 3rd Defendants

(by Counterclaim)

---------------------

Coram: Hon. Jones J. in Court

Date of hearing: 5 June 1990

Date of delivery of decision: 5 June 1990

Date of handing down reasons for decision: 27 June 1990

---------------

DECISION

----------------

1. On the 5th June, notices of motion issued by the plaintiff to strike out the defendants'defence and counterclaim in these actions came before me.

2. I was surprised that the applications had been made by motion and not by summons before a master so I enquired from Mr Fung, counsel for the plaintiff, why this course had been adopted. Mr Fung responded by citing a passage in the Whitebook under the commentary at 18/19/2 which provides that an application to strike out in the Chancery Division is made by summons or by motion. I pointed out to Mr Fung that there are no divisions of the High Court in Hong Kong so that his citation was inapplicable. Nevertheless he persisted in his applications on the grounds that as they were now before the court they should proceed.

3. An application to strike out a pleading is normally heard by way of summons before a master under the powers conferred by Order. 32, rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which provides : -

"11.(1) The Registrar and any master shall have power to transact all such business and exercise all such authority and jurisdiction as under any Ordinance or by these rules may be transacted and exercised by a judge in chambers except in respect of the following matters and proceedings, that is to say -

(a)

matters relating to criminal proceedings;

(b)

matters relating to the liberty of the subject other than orders for arrest and imprisonment to enforce, secure or pursue civil claims for the payment of money and orders prohibiting persons from leaving Hong Kong;

(d)

subject to paragraph (2), proceedings for the grant of an injunction or other order under Part I of Order 29;

(f)

any other matter or proceeding which by any of these rules is required to be heard only by a judge.

(2)

...."

4. However, it was...

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