THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

The appeal is allowed: the Amendment Order of 27 May 2019, which purported to amend the Consent Order to grant express leave for separate representation, was wrongly made and is set aside. Separate representation for co-plaintiffs is disfavoured and requires exceptional justification and full inter partes consideration; the Master erred by treating the matter as already decided ex parte and not re-hearing the issue when objections were raised. The question of the 2nd Plaintiff's locus and any exceptional justification must be reconsidered by a master after further submissions and evidence.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2594
Parties
1st Plaintiff: The Yin Nin Savings Mortgage Loan & Land Investment Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Loyal Hill Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Occupier(s) of premises (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant); 2nd Defendant: Chan Wai Ming; 3rd Defendant: Ng Ah Sheung; 4th Defendant: Ko Mow Tan (person appointed to represent the Estate of the deceased, Lue Hang Ping); 5th Defendant: Ng Kam Tong (person appointed to substitute Cheung Hon Ming); 6th Defendant: Ko Chui Ngor Yung; 7th Defendant: Chan Man Yau (executor of the Estate of the deceased, Chan Tse); 8th Defendant: Siu Sing Chau; 9th Defendant: Hui Ting Wo
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2020
Case Number
HCMP1739/2003
Procedural Posture
Land Possession Claim With Interlocutory Application on Separate Representation / Appeal Against Master's Amendment Order (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Amendment Order dated 27 May 2019 set aside.
Legal Topics
Separate Representation for Co Plaintiffs, Joinder of Parties, Slip Rule, Adverse Possession, Consent Orders, Overriding Objective
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Land Law Costs Case Management Separate Representation for Co Plaintiffs Joinder of Parties Slip Rule Adverse Possession +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Yin Nin Savings Mortgage Loan & Land Investment Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Loyal Hill Development Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Occupier(s) of premises (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant)

1st Defendant

Chan Wai Ming

2nd Defendant

Ng Ah Sheung

3rd Defendant

Ko Mow Tan (person appointed to represent the Estate of the deceased, Lue Hang Ping)

4th Defendant

Ng Kam Tong (person appointed to substitute Cheung Hon Ming)

5th Defendant

Ko Chui Ngor Yung

6th Defendant

Chan Man Yau (executor of the Estate of the deceased, Chan Tse)

7th Defendant

Siu Sing Chau

8th Defendant

Hui Ting Wo

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Possession Claim With Interlocutory Application on Separate Representation / Appeal Against Master's Amendment Order (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether separate legal representation should be permitted for co-plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the Amendment Order made under the slip rule was valid
  3. 3 Whether the defendants consented to separate representation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed: the Amendment Order of 27 May 2019, which purported to amend the Consent Order to grant express leave for separate representation, was wrongly made and is set aside. Separate representation for co-plaintiffs is disfavoured and requires exceptional justification and full inter partes consideration; the Master erred by treating the matter as already decided ex parte and not re-hearing the issue when objections were raised. The question of the 2nd Plaintiff's locus and any exceptional justification must be reconsidered by a master after further submissions and evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Amendment Order dated 27 May 2019 set aside.

Orders

  • Set aside the Amendment Order dated 27 May 2019
  • Direction that the issue of separate representation be reconsidered by any master after hearing further submissions from the parties and, if necessary, further evidence