|
CACV 191/2016
and CACV 192/2016
(Heard together)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 191 OF 2016
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 1013 OF 2011)
_______________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN CHUNG MOU PHILIP |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
LI TZE PING PHILIP |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
CHEUNG CHI KIN KENNETH |
4th Plaintiff |
| |
LAW CHEUNG KEUNG |
5th Plaintiff |
| |
KONG WAI |
6th Plaintiff |
| |
WONG MAN SHUN |
7th Plaintiff |
| |
CHUN KIN MAN |
8th Plaintiff |
| |
YEUNG TAK MING |
9th Plaintiff |
| |
PUN WAI FUN |
10th Plaintiff |
| |
FUNG SHUK YEE |
11th Plaintiff |
| |
KWOK TIN HO |
12th Plaintiff |
| |
LAI PUI KI |
13th Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN MANG WA |
14th Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN HOK WING |
15th Plaintiff |
| |
LEUNG WING SZE WINS |
16th Plaintiff |
| |
KONG YIN PING |
17th Plaintiff |
| |
SIU KA CHIU |
18th Plaintiff |
| |
WONG CHEUNG HEI |
19th Plaintiff |
| |
HUI WAI KEUNG |
20th Plaintiff |
| |
and |
| |
CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY,
the Administratrix of the Estate of
KWAN YAU HANG, deceased |
1st Defendant |
| |
LUK YAU TONG
(otherwise known as LUK NGAI) |
2nd Defendant |
| |
TANG SIU BING |
3rd Defendant |
| |
CHAN JOY SING |
4th Defendant |
| |
CHAN WING CHEUNG STEPHEN |
5th Defendant |
| |
KAM LAN KOON (金蘭觀) |
6th Defendant |
_______________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 192 OF 2016
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2477 OF 2011)
_______________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
LAU MAN WAI JOSEPH |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN CHUNG MOU PHILIP |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
LI TZE PING PHILIP |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
CHEUNG CHI KIN KENNETH |
4th Plaintiff |
| |
LAW CHEUNG KEUNG |
5th Plaintiff |
| |
KONG WAI |
6th Plaintiff |
| |
WONG MAN SHUN |
7th Plaintiff |
| |
CHUN KIN MAN |
8th Plaintiff |
| |
YEUNG TAK MING |
9th Plaintiff |
| |
PUN WAI FUN |
10th Plaintiff |
| |
FUNG SHUK YEE |
11th Plaintiff |
| |
KWOK TIN HO |
12th Plaintiff |
| |
LAI PUI KI |
13th Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN MANG WA |
14th Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN HOK WING |
15th Plaintiff |
| |
LEUNG WING SZE WINS |
16th Plaintiff |
| |
KONG YIN PING |
17th Plaintiff |
| |
SIU KA CHIU |
18th Plaintiff |
| |
WONG CHEUNG HEI |
19th Plaintiff |
| |
HUI WAI KEUNG |
20th Plaintiff |
| |
TONG CUN MING |
21st Plaintiff |
| |
CHONG KAI MAN |
22nd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
| |
CHEUNG SUN LING SANNY,
the Administratrix of the Estate of
KWAN YAU HANG, deceased |
1st Defendant |
| |
LUK YAU TONG
(otherwise known as LUK NGAI) |
2nd Defendant |
| |
TANG SIU BING |
3rd Defendant |
| |
CHAN JOY SING |
4th Defendant |
| |
CHAN WING CHEUNG STEPHEN |
5th Defendant |
| |
CHAN CHOR KUEN DIANA |
6th Defendant |
| |
LIU SUET MUI |
7th Defendant |
| |
CHU SIU WING SAMMY |
8th Defendant |
| |
TONG SHUN YAU |
9th Defendant |
| |
AU KWOK NING RICHARD |
10th Defendant |
| |
FUNG YEE CHUNG |
11th Defendant |
| HON PING KIN |
12th Defendant |
| CHOW KAM TONG |
13th Defendant |
| CHAN LAI CHUN JANE |
14th Defendant |
| KWOK YIN PING |
15th Defendant |
| KAM LAN KOON (金蘭觀) |
16th Defendant |
| SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE |
17th Defendant |
_______________________
(HEARD TOGETHER)
| Before: Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Kwan JJA in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 29 June 2017 |
| Date of Judgment: 29 June 2017 |
| Date of Reasons for Judgment: 28 July 2017 |
__________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
__________________________________
Hon Lam VP (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):
1. On 2 September 2015, Lok J determined several preliminary issues (“the judgment”) in the context of 3 actions concerning the affairs of Kam Lan Koon: HCMP 143 of 2011, HCMP 1013 of 2011 and HCMP 2477 of 2011. Kam Lan Koon [“the Koon”] had been a Taoist Temple and the judge had, by an order of 8 May 2012, with the consent of the parties, ruled that it was a charity. There were disputes between two groups of members which the judge referred to as the Traditionalists’ Camp and the Reformists’ Camp. The judge presided over all the proceedings from an early stage.
2. The first set of proceedings, HCMP 143 of 2011 (which the judge to referred as the Better Administration Action), was brought by 4 members of the Reformists’ Camp against 5 chairpersons of the Koon, the Koon and the Secretary for Justice seeking declaratory and other relief regarding the administration of the Koon.
3. In the second set of proceedings, HCMP 1013 of 2011 (which the judge referred to as the Resolutions Action), 20 members of the Reformists’ Camp sought relief against the 5 chairpersons and the Koon challenging a series of resolutions purportedly passed in 2011 by the Board of the Koon and at an extraordinary general meeting on 20 March 2011 and the annual general meeting on 8 May 2011. Those resolutions were recited by the judge at [28] to [37] in the judgment as follows:
“ 28. As Mr Chong had raised concern that there had been no Board’s meeting held in the past, the Koon started to hold Board’s meetings in early 2011. In the Board’s meeting on 27 February 2011, the Board confirmed that: (i) the past Exco’s meetings were extended meetings of the Board; and (ii) the 5 Chairpersons were authorised to handle the affairs of the Koon under Arts 19.4 and 19.5 of the Articles. Further, the Board resolved that, recognising the tradition of the annual nomination of councillors by the Spiritual Master, the election of councillors would be conducted by way of casting a vote of confidence for or against the entire cabinet of councillors in compliance with the election requirements specified in Art 17 of the Articles.
29. There is also another important provision in Art 7.1 of the Articles governing the right to vote and participation in election, which reads:
‘Subject to Article 6 above, any member (irrespective of sex and nationality) who as attained the age of 18 and who has:
(a) been admitted as a member of the Koon for a period not less than 12 months;
(b) for the previous 6 months continuously attending the Koon
shall be entitled to attend, to propose motions and to vote at general meetings and to participate in the election of Councillors.’
30. On 27 February 2011, the Board passed a resolution that, for the purpose of construing the meaning of “continuously attending” under Art 7.1(b), 70% attendance was the most reasonable construction of “continuously attending” for the past 6 months (“the...
| 
