KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

The Master applied Order 18 r 12 requiring necessity for fair disposal and concluded most requested particulars either sought evidence or were irrelevant to the two critical issues (beneficial interest and alleged torts). Accordingly the application was partially granted: defendants must provide particulars as to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KAN WAI CHUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: KAN KAR FAI; 3rd Plaintiff: KAN WAI MING; 4th Plaintiff: LAU FOOK KEUNG; 5th Plaintiff: KAN FOR PING, STEVEN; 1st Defendant: HAU WUN FAI; 2nd Defendant: LI SIU FUNG; 3rd Defendant: YEUNG WAI HUNG, PETER; 4th Defendant: LEE KWOK YUNG; 5th Defendant: CHUNG YU CHING; 1st Third Party: SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Third Party: SHINY DEVELOP LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Case Number
HCA811/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Conspiracy and Malicious Falsehood Arising From Conveyancing and Sale of Village Houses / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Under Order 18 R 12 in Chambers (master's Decision)
Outcome
Application for further particulars partially granted and partially refused; defendants ordered to provide specified particulars; costs ordered on a nisi basis in favour of plaintiffs at 50%
Legal Topics
Particulars and Pleadings, Malicious Falsehood, Conspiracy, Beneficial Interest in Property, Attestation of Signatures, Small House Policy
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Property Law Conveyancing Particulars and Pleadings Malicious Falsehood Conspiracy Beneficial Interest in Property +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAN WAI CHUNG

1st Plaintiff

KAN KAR FAI

2nd Plaintiff

KAN WAI MING

3rd Plaintiff

LAU FOOK KEUNG

4th Plaintiff

KAN FOR PING, STEVEN

5th Plaintiff

HAU WUN FAI

1st Defendant

LI SIU FUNG

2nd Defendant

YEUNG WAI HUNG, PETER

3rd Defendant

LEE KWOK YUNG

4th Defendant

CHUNG YU CHING

5th Defendant

SINO FAVOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

1st Third Party

SHINY DEVELOP LIMITED

2nd Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Conspiracy and Malicious Falsehood Arising From Conveyancing and Sale of Village Houses / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars Under Order 18 R 12 in Chambers (master's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs had a beneficial interest in the houses sold and whether the Development Agreements were illegal or unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether the defendants conspired or committed torts (forgery, malicious falsehood) in relation to the 2005 SPAs and impugned powers of attorney
  3. 3 Whether specific particulars sought by plaintiffs are necessary and relevant under Order 18 r 12 RHC

Ratio Decidendi

The Master applied Order 18 r 12 requiring necessity for fair disposal and concluded most requested particulars either sought evidence or were irrelevant to the two critical issues (beneficial interest and alleged torts). Accordingly the application was partially granted: defendants must provide particulars as to execution date/place/legal representation for the 2005 SPAs (Request 4(a)-(c)) and particulars of attestation (Request 5); other requests refused as unnecessary or seeking evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for further particulars partially granted and partially refused; defendants ordered to provide specified particulars; costs ordered on a nisi basis in favour of plaintiffs at 50%

Orders

  • Within 14 days defendants must answer Request 4(a) to (c) and Request 5 as identified in the decision
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs 50% of the costs of the summons on a nisi basis with certificate for counsel; costs to be summarily assessed on paper if not agreed; plaintiffs to lodge and serve statement of costs within 14 days and defendants to serve opposition within 7 days thereafter