THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the Master, having granted any leave for separate representation effectively ex parte and without directing other parties to address the matter, should have reconsidered the issue inter partes; the judge was entitled to set aside the Amendment Order and direct a master to reconsider to protect the court\'s control over its proceedings and to address locus, costs and fairness; the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 825
Parties
1st Plaintiff: THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: LOYAL HILL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant); 2nd Defendant: CHAN WAI MING; 3rd Defendant: NG AH SHEUNG; 4th Defendant (person Appointed to Represent Estate): KO MOW TAN; 5th Defendant (person Appointed to Substitute): NG KAM TONG; 6th Defendant: KO CHUI NGOR YUNG; 7th Defendant (executor of Estate): CHAN MAN YAU; 8th Defendant: SIU SING CHAU; 9th Defendant: HUI TING WO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Case Number
HCMP1739/2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (order 113) / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Separate Representation, Consent Order, Slip Rule, Set Aside Ex Parte Order, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Land Law Estate Administration Separate Representation Consent Order Slip Rule Set Aside Ex Parte Order Case Management +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

LOYAL HILL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant)

1st Defendant

CHAN WAI MING

2nd Defendant

NG AH SHEUNG

3rd Defendant

KO MOW TAN

4th Defendant (person Appointed to Represent Estate)

NG KAM TONG

5th Defendant (person Appointed to Substitute)

KO CHUI NGOR YUNG

6th Defendant

CHAN MAN YAU

7th Defendant (executor of Estate)

SIU SING CHAU

8th Defendant

HUI TING WO

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (order 113) / Application for Leave to Appeal (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master was entitled to amend the Consent Order under the slip rule to grant express leave for separate representation
  2. 2 Whether earlier leave for separate representation was effectively ex parte and required inter partes reconsideration
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should have applied for leave to appeal out of time or to set aside an ex parte order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Master, having granted any leave for separate representation effectively ex parte and without directing other parties to address the matter, should have reconsidered the issue inter partes; the judge was entitled to set aside the Amendment Order and direct a master to reconsider to protect the court\'s control over its proceedings and to address locus, costs and fairness; the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Costs of this application to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the 8th Defendant; costs order nisi to be made absolute 14 days after the date of this decision