Lai Siu Wai Louis Lawful Attorney Of 譚翠好 v Ho King Yin Edwin And Others

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCCJ4041/2011
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ4041B/2011 LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

DCCJ4041/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4041 OF 2011

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

BETWEEN

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS, lawful attorney of 譚翠好 Plaintiff

and

HO KING YIN EDWIN 1st Defendant
LEE KWOK MAN 2nd Defendant
LAM SHU KEE 3rd Defendant
LAM SHUK YEE CHRISTINE 4th Defendant

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

DCCJ 1276/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1276 OF 2012

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

BETWEEN

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS, lawful attorney of 譚翠好 Plaintiff

and

INCORPORATED OWNERS OF QUEEN’S PARK Defendant

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

Before: Deputy District Judge Jason Wan in Court
Date of Hearing: 31 December 2014
Date of Decision: 13 January 2015

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

DECISION

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

Introduction

1. This is the application of the defendants of both actions by summons dated 29 September 2014 for security for costs (“the application”) against the same plaintiff. The plaintiff opposes the application. At the beginning of the hearing, it has been agreed by the parties that if the application is granted, the quantum of the security for costs should be HK$532,845. Therefore, the only issue for this court to determine is whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff in both actions.

The factual background

2. For the purpose of this application, the factual background of the two actions can be briefly stated. The plaintiff, Mr Lai Siu Wai Louis (“Mr Lai”) is the lawful attorney of Madam Tam Chui Ho (“Madam Tam”) who is the registered owner of a piece of land in the New Territories. On the land, a security room and an iron gate (collectively referred as “the management facilities”) were erected.

3. Madam Tam leased the land together with the management facilities to a company called Golden Years Investment Ltd (“Golden Years”), which managed a development called Queen’s Park which is located adjacent to the land. Golden Years used the management facilities to provide security service to the residents of Queen’s Park.

4. In or about July 2011, a management dispute occurred between the owners of Queen’s Park and Golden Years. On 1 August 2011, the Owners Committee of Queen’s Park (“the Owners Committee”) issued a three-month notice to Golden Year to terminate its services. On 13 August 2011, the defendants of DCCJ 4041/2011 (who were members of the Owners Committee) installed a lock on the door of the security room. On 18 August 2011, the Owners Committee resolved to terminate the services of Golden Years with immediate effect. On 19 August 2011, the Owner Committee engaged workers to carry out works at the management facilities. Security guards employed by the Owners Committee expelled the plaintiff when he tried to enter the land.

5. On 21 October 2011, the plaintiff commenced the action of DCCJ 4041/2011 against the members of the Owners Committee seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the defendants had been in wrongful possession of the management facilities which were erected on the land.

6. On 14 November 2011, the Incorporated Owners of Queen’s Park (“the IO”) was incorporated. On 17 April 2012, the plaintiff commenced the action of DCCJ 1276/2012 against the IO seeking the same reliefs for the same reasons as DCCJ 4041/2011.

The application

7. The defendants of both actions make the application on the following grounds:-

(1) the plaintiff, Madam Tam, is ordinarily resident out of...

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