WAN WAI HEI WESLEY AND ANOTHER v. DOREEN TONG DO YE AND ANOTHER

WAN WAI HEI WESLEY AND ANOTHER v. DOREEN TONG DO YE AND ANOTHER

The court refused to grant further interim relief because the defendants' specific undertakings regarding notice and limits on inspections/repairs, together with the plaintiffs' cross-undertaking in damages, provided sufficient interim protection; therefore no order was made on the summonses until trial or further order.

Citation
WAN WAI HEI WESLEY AND ANOTHER v. DOREEN TONG DO YE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: 1st Plaintiff; Plaintiff: 2nd Plaintiff; Registered Owner/counterclaimant: Fortune Wealth Asia Limited; Defendant(s): Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2010
Case Number
HCA1419/2010
Procedural Posture
Family/property Dispute With Interim Applications / Interim Hearing of Summonses Directions and Undertakings Given
Outcome
No order on the summonses; undertakings by defendants accepted and cross-undertaking in damages by plaintiffs accepted; liberty to apply preserved
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Undertakings, Occupation, Jurisdiction, Repairs and Utilities, Counterclaim
Source Language
EN
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Interim Relief Undertakings Occupation Jurisdiction Repairs and Utilities +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st Plaintiff

Plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Fortune Wealth Asia Limited

Registered Owner/counterclaimant

Defendants

Defendant(s)

Procedural Posture

Family/property Dispute With Interim Applications / Interim Hearing of Summonses Directions and Undertakings Given

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further interim relief should be granted to protect the plaintiffs occupation and utilities
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court is the proper forum to determine ownership and occupation rights
  3. 3 Whether the undertakings given by the defendants are adequate as interim safeguards

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant further interim relief because the defendants' specific undertakings regarding notice and limits on inspections/repairs, together with the plaintiffs' cross-undertaking in damages, provided sufficient interim protection; therefore no order was made on the summonses until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

No order on the summonses; undertakings by defendants accepted and cross-undertaking in damages by plaintiffs accepted; liberty to apply preserved

Orders

  • No order on the summonses until trial or further order
  • Defendants to give 72 hours notice to the 1st plaintiff for any inspection of the property with contractors limited to a total of 5 visitors not including the 1st defendant