The Incorporated Owners Of The Sea Ranch v Joyful Interest Ltd

Judgment Date23 September 2011
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCMP1846/2010
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
DCMP1845/2010 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH v. JOYFUL INTEREST LTD

DCMP1845, 1846 & 1847/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS. 1845 & 1846 OF 2010

________________________

BETWEEN

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH Plaintiff
and
JOYFUL INTEREST LIMITED Defendant

________________________

DCMP1847/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1847 OF 2010

________________________

BETWEEN

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF THE SEA RANCH Plaintiff
and
CAMPOENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Defendant

________________________

Coram: H H Judge Chow in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing: 23 September 2011

Date of Decision: 23 September 2011

___________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

___________________________________

1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of Master B Mak dated 29 July 2011 refusing the plaintiff’s application for leave to file and serve the second affirmation of Ng Chi-ping.

2. By the originating summons, the plaintiff’s action against the defendant is for payment of monies in the nature of management fees allegedly due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also asks the court for an order for sale of the defendant’s properties.

3. In support of the plaintiff’s action, the plaintiff filed an affirmation by the chairman of the management committee of the plaintiff. The defendant filed and served an affirmation opposing the application stating, inter alias, that the plaintiff’s affirmation contained no breakdown and no supporting documents, and it put the plaintiff to strict proof of its claim.

4. On 21 September 2010 when the parties appeared before Master B Mak, the Master made an order granting leave to the plaintiff to file and serve an affidavit in reply to the defendant’s affirmation on or before 4 October 2010. He also ordered that no further affidavit shall be filed by any party without leave of the court. The plaintiff filed and served one affirmation in reply to the defendant’s affirmation on 4 October 2010. Then the plaintiff took out an application to seek court’s leave to file and serve an affirmation on 19 July 2011. Ten days later, on 29 July 2011, the application was refused by Master B Mak.

5. The plaintiff’s affirmation intended by the plaintiff to file and serve to the other side contained materials relevant to the disposal of this action, but the plaintiff’s application for the court’s leave to file this affirmation was made 10 months late. Why the plaintiff took a period of 10 months to retrieve the information and materials in its affirmation, namely the second affirmation of Ng Chi-ping? There is no...

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