YAU SIMON SHIK MAN AND OTHERS v. YAU SHIK YIN AND ANOTHER

YAU SIMON SHIK MAN AND OTHERS v. YAU SHIK YIN AND ANOTHER

The court directed further evidence and set the matter down for a two‑hour hearing with specified filing deadlines, and held that the adjournment must not impede performance of the Tomlin Order in relation to disposal of the three properties; costs were reserved.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 117
Parties
1st Plaintiff: YAU SIMON SHIK MAN; 2nd Plaintiff: YAU LAI MING; 3rd Plaintiff: CHU YUET KING; 4th Plaintiff: YAU YAT MIN; 1st Defendant: YAU SHIK YIN; 2nd Defendant: CHEUNG SIU LING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2018
Case Number
HCA330/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement Proceedings (tomlin Order) / First Hearing of Summons (directions and Adjournment to Substantive Hearing)
Outcome
Summons adjourned with directions for further evidence and submissions; parties directed to continue performance of Tomlin Order; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order Enforcement, Interpretation of Settlement Terms, Sale of Property, Court Directions and Evidence
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Tomlin Order Enforcement Interpretation of Settlement Terms Sale of Property Court Directions and Evidence

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAU SIMON SHIK MAN

1st Plaintiff

YAU LAI MING

2nd Plaintiff

CHU YUET KING

3rd Plaintiff

YAU YAT MIN

4th Plaintiff

YAU SHIK YIN

1st Defendant

CHEUNG SIU LING

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement Proceedings (tomlin Order) / First Hearing of Summons (directions and Adjournment to Substantive Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been breach or non‑compliance of the Tomlin Order in respect of Items 14, 15 and 17
  2. 2 Whether proceeds of sale must be physically paid over or may be dealt with by adjustments in ultimate distribution
  3. 3 What orders the court may make to supplement or enforce terms not expressly provided in the Tomlin Order

Ratio Decidendi

The court directed further evidence and set the matter down for a two‑hour hearing with specified filing deadlines, and held that the adjournment must not impede performance of the Tomlin Order in relation to disposal of the three properties; costs were reserved.

Court Disposition

Summons adjourned with directions for further evidence and submissions; parties directed to continue performance of Tomlin Order; costs reserved.

Orders

  • 1st defendant granted liberty to file evidence in reply within 14 days from date of order
  • No further evidence to be filed unless with leave of the court