TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER

The court refused to vary the Judgment or to grant an order of possession because it was likely functus officio and because the Declaration and Injunction granted are legally sufficient to protect the plaintiffs' interests; enforcement of the Judgment must proceed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms such as contempt proceedings rather than by varying the substantive orders in the Judgment.

Citation
TANG KA HUNG ROBERT AND ANOTHER v. TANG TIM CHUE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (executor of Estate): TANG KA HUNG ROBERT; Plaintiff (executor of Estate): TANG MEI SZE; 1st Defendant: TANG TIM CHUE alias TANG TIM CHU; 2nd Defendant: LAM KUEN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2011
Case Number
HCA3/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (land Possession) / Post Judgment Applications (enforcement Stage)
Outcome
Both post-judgment applications refused
Legal Topics
Possession, Declaration, Injunction, Functus Officio, Contempt Proceedings, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
EN
Land Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Injunctions Possession Declaration Injunction Functus Officio +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANG KA HUNG ROBERT

Plaintiff (executor of Estate)

TANG MEI SZE

Plaintiff (executor of Estate)

TANG TIM CHUE alias TANG TIM CHU

1st Defendant

LAM KUEN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (land Possession) / Post Judgment Applications (enforcement Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court retained jurisdiction or power to vary its Judgment (functus officio)
  2. 2 Whether a declaration and injunction are sufficient relief to enable recovery of possession
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs should be granted an order of possession or other relief to assist enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the Judgment or to grant an order of possession because it was likely functus officio and because the Declaration and Injunction granted are legally sufficient to protect the plaintiffs' interests; enforcement of the Judgment must proceed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms such as contempt proceedings rather than by varying the substantive orders in the Judgment.

Court Disposition

Both post-judgment applications refused

Orders

  • Plaintiffs\' application refused
  • 1st defendant\'s application refused