PONG, SEONG TERESA AND OTHERS v. CHAN NORMAN

PONG, SEONG TERESA AND OTHERS v. CHAN NORMAN

Paragraphs of the defendants' counterclaims that sought to complain about works and re-demarcation of common parts were struck out because individual defendants lacked standing to sue in relation to common parts without the Incorporated Owners' consent under s.16 BMO, the pleaded allegations were hypothetical and lacked particulars necessary to found a private cause of action, and alleged immigration breaches are matters for statutory enforcement not private civil claims.

Citation
PONG, SEONG TERESA AND OTHERS v. CHAN NORMAN
Parties
1st Plaintiff: PONG, SEONG TERESA; 2nd Plaintiff: TAM, SHUI CHUEN; 3rd Plaintiff / Plaintiff (hca 726/2011): TAM, SEEN MANN ESTEFANIA; Defendant / 1st Defendant: CHAN NORMAN; 2nd Defendant: WAI SO LIN SHIRLEY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Case Number
HCA627/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (consolidated) / Strike Out Applications Against Counterclaims; Reasons for Decision at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Certain paragraphs and prayers of the defendants' counterclaims in HCA 627/2010 and HCA 726/2011 struck out as specified; costs awarded to plaintiffs largely in their favour
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Locus Standi/standing, Counterclaim, Injunctions, Common Parts, Owner Corporations
Source Language
EN
Building Management Civil Procedure Property Law Nuisance Immigration (referenced) Strike Out Locus Standi/standing Counterclaim +3 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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PONG, SEONG TERESA

1st Plaintiff

TAM, SHUI CHUEN

2nd Plaintiff

TAM, SEEN MANN ESTEFANIA

3rd Plaintiff / Plaintiff (hca 726/2011)

CHAN NORMAN

Defendant / 1st Defendant

WAI SO LIN SHIRLEY

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (consolidated) / Strike Out Applications Against Counterclaims; Reasons for Decision at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether individual owners/occupiers have standing to sue in relation to common parts after incorporation under s.16 Building Management Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded paragraphs of the counterclaims disclose a reasonable cause of action or are plainly unsustainable
  3. 3 Whether allegations of immigration breaches give rise to private civil causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs of the defendants' counterclaims that sought to complain about works and re-demarcation of common parts were struck out because individual defendants lacked standing to sue in relation to common parts without the Incorporated Owners' consent under s.16 BMO, the pleaded allegations were hypothetical and lacked particulars necessary to found a private cause of action, and alleged immigration breaches are matters for statutory enforcement not private civil claims.

Court Disposition

Certain paragraphs and prayers of the defendants' counterclaims in HCA 627/2010 and HCA 726/2011 struck out as specified; costs awarded to plaintiffs largely in their favour

Orders

  • In HCA 627/2010, paragraphs 17 to 19 and prayers (1), (2) and (3) of the defendant's Counterclaim are struck out
  • In HCA 726/2011, paragraphs 35, 37 and 38 and prayers B and C of the defendants' Counterclaim are struck out