WONG CHUN CHOI also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI AND OTHERS v. MAK TAK SUM, also known as MAN SUM
The court granted leave to amend the summons but refused the declaratory relief sought as unnecessary and kept the wording of clause 3.2 in the lease identical to clause 3.2 of the settlement agreement, holding that the settlement wording best reflected the parties' intention; the court ordered specific performance steps (execution and registration of Deed Poll and lease and delivery to defendant's solicitors by 20 Jan 2017) and allocated costs: defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the amendment application, plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the hearing before the court (approx. 1 hour), with both sets of costs to be summarily assessed on papers.
- Citation
- WONG CHUN CHOI also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI AND OTHERS v. MAK TAK SUM, also known as MAN SUM
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: WONG CHUN CHOI (also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI); 2nd Plaintiff: WONG TIM CHOI; 3rd Plaintiff: WONG WAI CHOI; 4th Plaintiff: WONG FU CHOI; 5th Plaintiff: WONG TING FONG; Defendant: Defendant
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 14 December 2016
- Case Number
- DCCJ3902/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action Rent, Possession and Lease Enforcement / Interlocutory Hearing of Summonses (amendment Application and Enforcement of Tomlin Order)
- Outcome
- Amendment summons allowed; amended summons partly granted (declaration refused as unnecessary); orders made for execution and registration of Deed Poll and for execution and delivery of lease; costs allocated between parties.
- Legal Topics
- Lease, Forfeiture, Tomlin Order, Settlement Agreement Interpretation, Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
WONG CHUN CHOI (also known as WONG CHEUN CHOI)
1st Plaintiff
WONG TIM CHOI
2nd Plaintiff
WONG WAI CHOI
3rd Plaintiff
WONG FU CHOI
4th Plaintiff
WONG TING FONG
5th Plaintiff
Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Rent, Possession and Lease Enforcement / Interlocutory Hearing of Summonses (amendment Application and Enforcement of Tomlin Order)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lease to be executed is limited to terms in the settlement agreement/schedule
- 2 Whether the defendant could amend clause 3.2 to avoid forfeiture for breaches of the government lease
- 3 Proper construction of 'existing structures' and the relevant date for that phrase
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted leave to amend the summons but refused the declaratory relief sought as unnecessary and kept the wording of clause 3.2 in the lease identical to clause 3.2 of the settlement agreement, holding that the settlement wording best reflected the parties' intention; the court ordered specific performance steps (execution and registration of Deed Poll and lease and delivery to defendant's solicitors by 20 Jan 2017) and allocated costs: defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the amendment application, plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the hearing before the court (approx. 1 hour), with both sets of costs to be summarily assessed on papers.
Court Disposition
Amendment summons allowed; amended summons partly granted (declaration refused as unnecessary); orders made for execution and registration of Deed Poll and for execution and delivery of lease; costs allocated between parties.
Orders
- Leave granted to amend the summons as per the draft amended summons.
- Plaintiffs to execute and procure Wong Pui Yin (executrix of the 5th plaintiff's estate) to execute a Deed Poll in terms of the draft with Land Boundary Plan and register the Deed Poll in the Land Registry on or before 20 Jan 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment