LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS

LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck out as against the 3rd defendant because it constituted an abuse of process by collateral attack on possession orders and writs issued in DCMP; the correct forum for the plaintiff to assert his proprietary rights was by continuing to participate in the DCMP, not by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Li Cheong Hing; 1st Defendant: Chan Lok; 2nd Defendant (joint and Several Trustees of the Property of Chan Lok, a Bankrupt): Wong Ka Sek and Wong Ka Lam King; 3rd Defendant: Primecredit Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 2016
Case Number
HCMP3234/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/possession/declaratory / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R19(1) Rules of the High Court Heard and Decided
Outcome
The entirety of the Amended Statement of Claim is struck out as against the 3rd defendant and the action against the 3rd defendant is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Possession, Declaration of Beneficial Ownership, Abuse of Process, Striking Out, Mortgage/charge, Trusts, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Property Equity Bankruptcy Procedural Law Possession Declaration of Beneficial Ownership Abuse of Process +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Cheong Hing

Plaintiff

Chan Lok

1st Defendant

Wong Ka Sek and Wong Ka Lam King

2nd Defendant (joint and Several Trustees of the Property of Chan Lok, a Bankrupt)

Primecredit Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/possession/declaratory / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R19(1) Rules of the High Court Heard and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an occupier may commence a separate action to assert title to property subject to possession proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Amended Statement of Claim constituted an abuse of process by collateral attack on possession orders and writs in DCMP
  3. 3 Whether relief to set aside a legal charge and vacate its registration can be sought in a separate action rather than in the possession proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck out as against the 3rd defendant because it constituted an abuse of process by collateral attack on possession orders and writs issued in DCMP; the correct forum for the plaintiff to assert his proprietary rights was by continuing to participate in the DCMP, not by instituting a separate High Court action.

Court Disposition

The entirety of the Amended Statement of Claim is struck out as against the 3rd defendant and the action against the 3rd defendant is dismissed.

Orders

  • The entirety of the Amended Statement of Claim is struck out as against the 3rd defendant and the action against the 3rd defendant is dismissed.