NG CHUN SANG also known as NG CHUN SUNG AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 544 AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF LOT NO. 539 BOTH IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 77 AND ANOTHER
Service was ineffective because mail sent to the address given by the 2nd defendant was returned as incomplete/non-existent and the plaintiffs had or could have used an alternative known address (Fanling), therefore the earlier summary judgment was irregular and set aside; the plaintiffs' proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal is refused; the variation of the costs order nisi is refused and costs follow the event in favour of the 2nd defendant.
- Citation
- [2021] HKDC 1274
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: NG CHUN SANG aka NG CHUN SUNG (吳春生); 2nd Plaintiff: NG MA SANG (吳馬生); 1st Defendant: Persons in occupation of Lot No. 544 and The Remaining Portion Of Lot No. 539 both in Demarcation District No. 77; 2nd Defendant: WANG HUIXIU SANDY (王惠秀)
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2021
- Case Number
- DCCJ3463/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action Land/possession; Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / Post Judgment Applications: Leave to Appeal and Variation of Costs Determined on Paper
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal dismissed; Variation Summons dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd defendant
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Irregular Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Adverse Possession, Variation of Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NG CHUN SANG aka NG CHUN SUNG (吳春生)
1st Plaintiff
NG MA SANG (吳馬生)
2nd Plaintiff
Persons in occupation of Lot No. 544 and The Remaining Portion Of Lot No. 539 both in Demarcation District No. 77
1st Defendant
WANG HUIXIU SANDY (王惠秀)
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Land/possession; Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / Post Judgment Applications: Leave to Appeal and Variation of Costs Determined on Paper
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of summonses and supporting affirmations on the 2nd defendant was effective
- 2 Whether an address previously given but apparently non-existent constitutes a valid address for ordinary service
- 3 Whether O.65 r.9 RDC applies where no proper address for service is available
Ratio Decidendi
Service was ineffective because mail sent to the address given by the 2nd defendant was returned as incomplete/non-existent and the plaintiffs had or could have used an alternative known address (Fanling), therefore the earlier summary judgment was irregular and set aside; the plaintiffs' proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal is refused; the variation of the costs order nisi is refused and costs follow the event in favour of the 2nd defendant.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal dismissed; Variation Summons dismissed; costs awarded to 2nd defendant
Orders
- Leave Summons dated 30 April 2021 dismissed
- Variation Summons dated 22 April 2021 dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment