IP WAN FAT AND OTHERS v. KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

IP WAN FAT AND OTHERS v. KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

The Recorder allowed the amendment to paragraph 1 to frame the Question about the true construction of the 10 March 1992 assignment because the issue plainly arose, but because the plaintiffs had not had adequate opportunity to file evidence on that specific Question the court ordered staged filing of further affidavits and refixed the matter for hearing; costs reserved.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 906
Parties
1st Plaintiff: IP WAN FAT; 2nd Plaintiff: IP WAI HONG; 3rd Plaintiff: SUNG HAU TAK; 4th Plaintiff: IP MIU HA; 5th Plaintiff: IP WAI MAN RAYMOND; 1st Defendant: KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: HO KWOK WA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Case Number
HCA240/2016
Procedural Posture
Trespass and Boundary Dispute / Summary Determination Application Under Order 14 A; Interlocutory Amendment Hearing
Outcome
Application to amend paragraph 1 of the Summons granted; directions given for further evidence and refix; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Boundary Dispute, Construction of Assignment, Order 14 a Summary Determination, Amendment of Proceedings, Evidence Directions
Source Language
EN
Property Law Tort Civil Procedure Trespass Boundary Dispute Construction of Assignment Order 14 a Summary Determination Amendment of Proceedings +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IP WAN FAT

1st Plaintiff

IP WAI HONG

2nd Plaintiff

SUNG HAU TAK

3rd Plaintiff

IP MIU HA

4th Plaintiff

IP WAI MAN RAYMOND

5th Plaintiff

KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

1st Defendant

HO KWOK WA

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trespass and Boundary Dispute / Summary Determination Application Under Order 14 A; Interlocutory Amendment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, on the true construction of the 10 March 1992 assignment to Sum Yuk Ming, the boundary between section X and section W is as marked J-A in the 14 March 1992 sale plan
  2. 2 Whether the 1992 plan has priority or effect to determine the parcel conveyed
  3. 3 Whether amendment of the Summons to frame that Question should be permitted at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder allowed the amendment to paragraph 1 to frame the Question about the true construction of the 10 March 1992 assignment because the issue plainly arose, but because the plaintiffs had not had adequate opportunity to file evidence on that specific Question the court ordered staged filing of further affidavits and refixed the matter for hearing; costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Application to amend paragraph 1 of the Summons granted; directions given for further evidence and refix; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Defendants to file any further affidavit evidence in relation to the framed Question within 28 days
  • Plaintiffs to file any further affidavit evidence in relation to the Question within 28 days thereafter