Kwok Chu Lan v Wong Ka Yee Phoebe

Judgment Date12 December 2000
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ15044/2000
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ015044/2000 XCHRX Kwok Chu Lan v. Wong Ka Yee Phoebe

DCCJ015044/2000

DCCJ16123 & 15044/2000 (CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16123 & 15044 OF 2000 (CONSOLIDATED)

BETWEEN
Kwok Chu-lan Plaintiff
AND
Wong Ka-yee, Phoebe Defendant

Coram: Deputy Judge Lok in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 12 December 2000

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. This is an application by the Applicant, Mr Wong Sai-cheong, to be joined as the 2nd Defendant in this action.

2. The Plaintiff brought the present action against the existing Defendant for the repayment of loan. It is the Plaintiff's case that the loan was secured by a second legal charge which was executed by the existing Defendant and the Applicant. However, the Plaintiff does not seek to enforce the second legal charge in the present action.

3. The Applicant admits that a loan was made to the existing Defendant, but he seeks to set aside the legal charge on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud on the part of the Plaintiff and one Madam Shum Suk-yee.

4. However, I must say that the issue in the Applicant's intended action is quite unrelated to the Plaintiff's claim in the existing action. As the Plaintiff is not seeking to enforce the second legal charge, it is not necessary for the court to decide on the validity of such charge in the Plaintiff's claim. Indeed it is not in dispute that a loan was in fact made to the existing Defendant, and so the only issue is whether such loan is enforceable or whether the making of such loan contravenes the provisions in the Money Lenders Ordinance. All these issues have nothing to do with the validity of the second legal charge. As the Plaintiff does not seek to enforce the second legal charge and the Applicant will not in anyway be bound by the decision of this court in the existing action, I do not see it fit to allow the Applicant to be joined as the 2nd Defendant.

5. Mr Mak, for the Applicant, also submits that in the case that the Applicant fails in the present application, the Applicant will certainly commence a separate action against the Plaintiff which may result in multiplicity of actions. However, I do not accept this to be a valid reason for me to exercise the discretion in favour of the Applicant. Devlin J. in the case of Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Limited [1956] 1 QB 357 said the following:

"If I may express with diffidence my own view of the rule, apart from the authorities, I would support the narrower construction. I do not, with deference to those who have thought otherwise, agree that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions, though it may incidentally have that effect. The court has other ways of doing...

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