Leung Kwai Ling v Hong Kong Land Ltd

Judgment Date13 August 2013
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCA432/2013
Subject MatterCivil Action
HCA432/2013 LEUNG KWAI LING v. HONG KONG LAND LTD

HCA 432/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 432 OF 2013

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

BETWEEN

LEUNG KWAI LING Plaintiff

and

HONG KONG LAND LIMITED Defendant

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

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 1 August 2013
Date of Decision: 1 August 2013
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 13 August 2013

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

I. Introduction

1. On 8 March 2013, the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant “for compensation and damages for negligence and other claims” to be detailed in the Statement of Claim then yet to be filed. The Statement of Claim was filed on 2 July 2013. The plaintiff says that the defendant was the guarantor in respect of the Lai Sing Court Redevelopment Project, and is liable for all liabilities of the developer HK Glory Properties Limited under the Development Agreement dated 1 May 2001 and the Supplemental Development Agreement dated 31 October 2002 in respect of the unit in Lai Sing Court of which the plaintiff and Lee Yiu Kei were the registered owners.

2. On 2 July 2013, the plaintiff served the Writ of Summons in the present action on the defendant’s solicitors (“JSM”). On 10 July 2013, JSM on behalf of the defendant filed acknowledgment of service giving notice of intention to defend.

3. On 16 July 2013, the defendant filed a summons seeking the following orders (“D’s Summons”):

(a) to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim in the present action under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, it is frivolous and vexatious, and it is an abuse of the process of the court, and to dismiss the plaintiff’s present action against the defendant with costs;

(b) to extend time for the defendant to file and serve their Defence until 28 days after the determination of D’s Summons;

(c) to apply for restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) and restricted applications order (“RAO”) against the plaintiff.

4. On the same day, the defendant filed the affidavit of their director Robert Yau Chung Wong (“Mr Wong”) in support of D’s Summons. It is the defendant’s case that the plaintiff’s present action is unmeritorious and similar to other legal actions commenced by the plaintiff against their subsidiary HK Glory Properties Limited (HCA 347/2013) and others which all concern matters in respect of the Lai Sing Court Redevelopment Project. The defendant says that the earlier legal actions commenced by the plaintiff were dismissed, and in HCA 374/2013 HK Glory Properties Limited had issued a summons similar to D’s Summons herein against the plaintiff,...

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