WONG YUEN HAN v. WONG SHING CHUNG AND OTHERS

WONG YUEN HAN v. WONG SHING CHUNG AND OTHERS

The summons was dismissed because affirmations filed in the course of proceedings before the court are exempt from s32 of the Crimes Ordinance; the alternative criminal provisions do not furnish a civil remedy to dismiss or punish affirmations absent conviction; there was insufficient basis to conclude the affirmations were false at interlocutory stage where factual disputes exist and must be resolved at trial; costs awarded to successful defendants.

Citation
WONG YUEN HAN v. WONG SHING CHUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wong Yuen Han; 2nd Plaintiff: Steven Chan; 1st Defendant: Wong Shing Chung; 2nd Defendant: Wong Shing Kan; 3rd Defendant: Tsang Lai Ping; 4th Defendant: Tai Yuet Hang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2014
Case Number
HCA458/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Probate/estate Dispute / Interlocutory Hearing (chambers) on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; costs awarded to 1st and 3rd defendants
Legal Topics
Affirmation/affidavit, Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Jurisdictional Limits of Criminal Statutes in Civil Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Evidence Criminal Law (allegations of False Affirmation/perjury) Affirmation/affidavit Strike Out Summary Judgment Costs +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Yuen Han

1st Plaintiff

Steven Chan

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Shing Chung

1st Defendant

Wong Shing Kan

2nd Defendant

Tsang Lai Ping

3rd Defendant

Tai Yuet Hang

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Probate/estate Dispute / Interlocutory Hearing (chambers) on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32 of the Crimes Ordinance applies to affirmations filed in proceedings before the court
  2. 2 Whether alleged false affirmations can be the subject of the present civil summons seeking dismissal and reporting under criminal provisions
  3. 3 Whether affirmations may be struck out under Order 41 r6 RHC as scandalous/irrelevant/oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because affirmations filed in the course of proceedings before the court are exempt from s32 of the Crimes Ordinance; the alternative criminal provisions do not furnish a civil remedy to dismiss or punish affirmations absent conviction; there was insufficient basis to conclude the affirmations were false at interlocutory stage where factual disputes exist and must be resolved at trial; costs awarded to successful defendants.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; costs awarded to 1st and 3rd defendants

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs awarded to 1st and 3rd defendants in the sum of HKD 15,000 to be paid by the 1st plaintiff within 14 days