LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER

LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER

The court held that the Consent Order already prohibited discharge of anything other than rain water to the rain drainage and that if the plaintiff discharged sewage the proper remedy is a contempt citation, not an injunction; the Consent Order did not expressly authorize nor expressly prohibit installation of manhole/metal plates and such works may be impliedly necessary for restoration — disputes over unauthorized works require separate proceedings; accordingly the summons seeking the directions and injunctions was dismissed.

Citation
LEE YUM SANG v. YEUNG FOOK HONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lee Yum Sang; 1st Defendant: Yeung Fook Hong; 2nd Defendant: Leung Yuk Sin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2012
Case Number
HCA638/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Directions Following Consent Order
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Enforcement, Injunction, Contempt of Court, Easement/right of Way, Drainage, Restoration Works
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Contempt Consent Order Enforcement Injunction Contempt of Court Easement/right of Way +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Yum Sang

Plaintiff

Yeung Fook Hong

1st Defendant

Leung Yuk Sin

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Directions Following Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court may grant an injunction post‑settlement where alleged breach of consent order is said to have occurred
  2. 2 Whether the Consent Order permits discharge of sewage to rain drainage
  3. 3 Whether the installation of a manhole and metal plates and construction of channels fall within works impliedly necessary to restore the road surface under the Consent Order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Consent Order already prohibited discharge of anything other than rain water to the rain drainage and that if the plaintiff discharged sewage the proper remedy is a contempt citation, not an injunction; the Consent Order did not expressly authorize nor expressly prohibit installation of manhole/metal plates and such works may be impliedly necessary for restoration — disputes over unauthorized works require separate proceedings; accordingly the summons seeking the directions and injunctions was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Parties to be heard on costs