CHEUNG CHUNG YEE v. 王慶培 AND OTHERS

CHEUNG CHUNG YEE v. 王慶培 AND OTHERS

The court dismissed both the strike out and O 14A applications: on the strike out limb the defence and counterclaim were not shown to be unarguably bad when the pleaded facts are assumed true; on the O 14A limb the court did not have all necessary facts and the oral agreement's scope and the existence of required approvals could not be finally determined without a trial.

Citation
CHEUNG CHUNG YEE v. 王慶培 AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: CHEUNG CHUNG YEE; Defendants: 1st defendant; 1st named 3rd defendant; 1st named 5th defendant; 7th defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Case Number
DCCJ4225/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil — Possession/licence Dispute With Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment Under O 18 R 19 and O 14 A)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed in full
Legal Topics
Licence, Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Strike Out Under O 18 R 19, Summary Judgment Under O 14 a, Possession
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Equity Licence Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Proprietary Estoppel Strike Out Under O 18 R 19 +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEUNG CHUNG YEE

Plaintiff

1st defendant; 1st named 3rd defendant; 1st named 5th defendant; 7th defendant

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil — Possession/licence Dispute With Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment Under O 18 R 19 and O 14 A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence and counterclaim are unarguably bad and should be struck out under O 18 r 19(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the dispute is suitable for determination under Order 14A (i.e. whether the question is one of law or construction and all necessary facts are before the court)
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded oral agreement confers a beneficial interest in land

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed both the strike out and O 14A applications: on the strike out limb the defence and counterclaim were not shown to be unarguably bad when the pleaded facts are assumed true; on the O 14A limb the court did not have all necessary facts and the oral agreement's scope and the existence of required approvals could not be finally determined without a trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed in full

Orders

  • Plaintiff's striking out and Order 14A applications dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event: plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the application with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed