TAM SHUN LAU SHUI HAR v. LI WAI LUN AND ANOTHER

TAM SHUN LAU SHUI HAR v. LI WAI LUN AND ANOTHER

The strike out application was refused because absence of objective noise tests and allegations of acquiescence raise factual issues that go to the merits and are not suitable for resolution at interlocutory stage; these matters must be determined at trial.

Citation
TAM SHUN LAU SHUI HAR v. LI WAI LUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TAM SHUN; 2nd Plaintiff: LAU SHUI HAR; 1st Defendant: LI WAI LUN; 2nd Defendant: LEE MEI FUNG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 2011
Case Number
DCCJ2394/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Private Nuisance (noise) / Interlocutory Strike Out Application
Outcome
Defendants' application to strike out refused
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Noise, Strike Out, Acquiescence, Interlocutory Application
Source Language
EN

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAM SHUN

1st Plaintiff

LAU SHUI HAR

2nd Plaintiff

LI WAI LUN

1st Defendant

LEE MEI FUNG

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Private Nuisance (noise) / Interlocutory Strike Out Application

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is frivolous or vexatious
  2. 2 Whether a plaintiff must produce objective noise test results to maintain a nuisance claim
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' alleged long acquiescence bars the nuisance claim

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application was refused because absence of objective noise tests and allegations of acquiescence raise factual issues that go to the merits and are not suitable for resolution at interlocutory stage; these matters must be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to strike out refused

Orders

  • Application to strike out dismissed
  • Parties to make submissions on appropriate directions for conduct of the case and on costs