CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased) AND OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased) AND OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

The court held that the DHCJ order could not be construed as conferring authority on Lau Kwong & Hung to act for Leeloong; the Notice to Act filed by Lau Kwong & Hung was therefore not supported by authority and was set aside; costs consequences follow the presumption in CPR 38.6 unless the claimant demonstrates a good reason to depart from it.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2244
Parties
1st Plaintiff (executrix): CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased); 2nd Plaintiff; Applicant (hcmp 868/2018): LEELOONG INVESTMENT CO. LTD; 3rd Plaintiff: CHEN HA PING HEPBURN; 4th Plaintiff: CHEN TING HOI; 1st Defendant: CHEN TING SAN DANIEL; Respondent / Solicitors: LAU KWONG & HUNG (a firm of solicitors)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
HCA570/2014
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action (hca 570/2014) and HCMP Interlocutory Application (hcmp 868/2018) / Interlocutory Applications Heard in Chambers Concerning Authority to Act by Solicitors, Set Aside of Notice to Act, Strike Out, Leave to Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Notice to Act dated 11 May 2018 filed by Lau Kwong & Hung set aside; orders and costs to follow ordinary presumption under CPR 38.6
Legal Topics
Notice to Act, Authority to Act, Set Aside Application, Costs on Discontinuance, Misjoinder, Construction of Court Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Law Solicitors' Practice Derivative Actions Notice to Act Authority to Act Set Aside Application Costs on Discontinuance +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased)

1st Plaintiff (executrix)

LEELOONG INVESTMENT CO. LTD

2nd Plaintiff; Applicant (hcmp 868/2018)

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN

3rd Plaintiff

CHEN TING HOI

4th Plaintiff

CHEN TING SAN DANIEL

1st Defendant

LAU KWONG & HUNG (a firm of solicitors)

Respondent / Solicitors

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action (hca 570/2014) and HCMP Interlocutory Application (hcmp 868/2018) / Interlocutory Applications Heard in Chambers Concerning Authority to Act by Solicitors, Set Aside of Notice to Act, Strike Out, Leave to Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice to Act dated 11 May 2018 filed by Lau Kwong & Hung should be set aside for lack of authority from Leeloong Investment Company Limited
  2. 2 Whether the DHCJ Seagroatt order could be construed as conferring authority on Lau Kwong & Hung to act for Leeloong or to pursue a derivative action
  3. 3 Application of the presumption under CPR 38.6 as to costs on discontinuance and whether any departure from that presumption is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the DHCJ order could not be construed as conferring authority on Lau Kwong & Hung to act for Leeloong; the Notice to Act filed by Lau Kwong & Hung was therefore not supported by authority and was set aside; costs consequences follow the presumption in CPR 38.6 unless the claimant demonstrates a good reason to depart from it.

Court Disposition

Notice to Act dated 11 May 2018 filed by Lau Kwong & Hung set aside; orders and costs to follow ordinary presumption under CPR 38.6

Orders

  • The Notice to Act dated 11 May 2018 filed by Lau Kwong & Hung is set aside.
  • Costs consequences to be determined in accordance with CPR 38.6; costs to be taxed if not agreed.