Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Ng Yuk Mui v Ng Kammi Yu Ning Appointed By Order Dated 30 September 2015 To Represent The Estate Of Ng Hoi, Deceased And Others

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date11 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCFI 1712
Year2018
Judgement NumberHCA53/2012
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCA53/2012 NG YUK MUI v. NG KAMMI YU NING APPOINTED BY ORDER DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2015 TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE OF NG HOI, DECEASED AND OTHERS

HCA 53/2012

[2018] HKCFI 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 53 OF 2012

______________

BETWEEN
NG YUK MUI(吳玉梅) Plaintiff
and
NG KAMMI YU NING(吳宇寧)
appointed by order dated 30 September 2015 to
represent the estate of NG HOI (吳海), deceased 		1st Defendant
TAN CHUN MIAO(譚春妙)
formerly known as NG TAN CHUN MIAO(吳譚春妙)		 2nd Defendant
CHINA UNIQUE TRADING LIMITED 3rd Defendant
LO MANG KAM(羅慢琴) 4th Defendant
The Occupier(s) 5th Defendant

______________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung SC in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 11 July 2018

Date of Decision: 11 July 2018

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. On 19 April 2018, the plaintiff took out a summons for leave to amend her Re-Re-Amended Statement of Claim (“RRASOC”). The summons, originally returnable before a Master on 4 May 2018, was adjourned to be heard before me at the pretrial review conducted today.

2. The Statement of Claim was first filed on 11 January 2012. It has since been amended three times (on 17 February 2012, 13 September 2012, and 16 June 2016). The result is the current RRASOC.

3. When first issued, the Writ and the Statement of Claim named Mr Ng Hoi as the 1st defendant (the “Deceased”). On 13 June 2014, he filed a witness statement. He passed away in January 2015. By Order dated 30 September 2015, Ng Kammi Yu Ning was appointed to represent the Deceased’s estate, who becomes the current D1.

4. According to the RRASOC in its current form, the plaintiff, relying on the doctrine of adverse possession and her alleged possession of certain lots of land in the New Territories, seeks a number of declarations pursuant to the Limitation Ordinance. Further or alternatively, she relies on an oral agreement (the “Oral Agreement”) which she avers she entered into with the Deceased in 1993. She avers that that oral agreement was evidenced in writing by what she calls “the Confirmation” which she says was signed by the Deceased. She avers that the Oral Agreement concerns a plot of land which the parties call the “Yellow Portion”, and that its effect was that the Yellow Portion “shall belong to the Plaintiff.” She avers that as a result of the existence of the Oral Agreement, some subsequent dealings by inter alios the Deceased in respect of the Yellow Portion either had no legal effect or were null and void. In particular, she pleads that the Assignment (the “Assignment”) by inter alios the Deceased of the Yellow Portion to D4 was null and void and is liable to be set aside.

5. Both in his defence and witness statement, the Deceased denied the existence of the Oral Agreement.

6. The amendments now the plaintiff proposes to effect can be grouped under four main categories:

(a) to amend her plea on the nature of the Oral Agreement by averring that it is a “family arrangement” (the “Family Arrangement Amendments”);

(b) to add causes of action based on breach of trust (the “Breach of Trust Amendments”). Briefly stated, the plaintiff seeks to aver thereby that the Confirmation and the arrangement reached between her and the Deceased in 1993 resulted in the Deceased holding thereafter the Yellow Portion “on express and/or common intention constructive trust” for her, and that the subsequent execution of the Assignment constituted in law a breach of trust;

(c) to insert a cause of action of knowing receipt (the “Knowing Receipt Amendments”). Again briefly stated, the plaintiff seeks to aver, following on from the Breach of Trust Amendments, that the conveyance of the Yellow Portion by the Assignment to D4 constituted knowing receipt of trust property on the part of D4;

(d) to amend the prayer (the “Prayer Amendments”). Such amendments fall into two groups: (1) the re-organization of the relief currently sought; and (2) the addition of further relief consequential upon the effecting of the Amendments set out above.

7. Mr Jason Lee, counsel for the plaintiff, submits that “all of the proposed amendments…only seek to state explicitly the legal consequences of material facts already pleaded”, and that “they are strictly speaking not...

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