Lee Chuet Man v Kwok Wai

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date20 November 2007
Judgement NumberDCCJ5268/2006
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ005268/2006 LEE CHUET MAN v. KWOK WAI

DCCJ 5268/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5268 OF 2006

________________

BETWEEN

LEE CHUET MAN Plaintiff
and
KWOK WAI 1st Defendant
THE OCCUPIERS of the land and premises
known as Factory C on 11th Floor,
Fou Wah Industrial Building,
Nos. 10-16 Pun Shan Street, Tsuen Wan,
New Territories, Hong Kong erected on
Section B of Tsuen Wan New Territories
Lot No. 338 in Demarcation District No. 355 2nd Defendant

_______________

Coram: His Hon. Judge Leung in Chambers (open to public)

Date of hearing: 10 October 2007

Date of handing down decision: 20 November 2007

__________________

DECISION

__________________

1. Lee (the Plaintiff) commenced this action in October 2006. Kwok (the 1st Defendant) acknowledged service of the proceedings and indicated his intention to defend. In default of defence, the interlocutory judgment was entered against Kwok and the 2nd Defendant in May this year. Kwok now applies to set aside the judgment.

Background

2. Lee and Chu Shing Cho are the registered owners of the factory unit in question in Tsuen Wan, New Territories. They were at the material time, and still are, tenants-in-common each holding 50% interest in the property. Lee claims that Kwok has been occupying the property as a trespasser since no later November 2005. Lee claims vacant possession of the property and mesne profit to be assessed.

3. Kwok denies trespass. He claims he has been authorised by Chu to occupy the property. He seems to suggest that Lee has at some stage also permitted him to remain in the property.

4. Kwok seems to be putting both the regularity of the judgment and the merits of the defence in issue.

Regular judgment

5. There are the affirmations of service filed on behalf of Lee. I also heard Kwok’s explanation of why the mail and documents delivered might not have reached him. Some of his explanation was impromptu in court, not to be found in his affirmation and should be inadmissible.

6. Kwok also asserted discussion between him and Lau Wing Keung, representative of Lee, after the commencement of this action. Lau allegedly misled him to believe that he could just wait and would be notified whether this action would continue or not. Lau in his affirmation denied the allegation. However, irrespective of the dispute, the fact is that Lee’s solicitors did serve the requisite notice to Kwok in February this year prior to entering judgment.

7. I have no doubt about proper service in this case. This is a regular judgment.

Merits

...

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