CHEUNG PO CHEONG PAUL AND ANOTHER v. WU SIU FAN AND OTHERS

CHEUNG PO CHEONG PAUL AND ANOTHER v. WU SIU FAN AND OTHERS

Leave to defend was refused and summary judgment granted because the 1st defendant's only substantive defence sought to litigate a third party's competing title (Chen) in parallel; there was no triable issue between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant on the pleaded facts and the plaintiffs, as registered co-owners, were entitled to an inquiry and payment of their 1/6 share of occupation rent.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 21
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cheung Po Cheong Paul; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheung Hing Cheong; 1st Defendant: Wu Siu Fan; 2nd Defendant: Yip Wai Ki; 3rd Defendant: Yip Yuk Chee Juspine
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 2020
Case Number
DCCJ5311/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment for plaintiffs; leave to defend refused as to 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Co Ownership, Ouster, Occupation/occupational Rent, Interpleader, Mortgagee Sale, Undervalue, Title Dispute
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Equity Landlord and Tenant Summary Judgment Co Ownership Ouster Occupation/occupational Rent +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Po Cheong Paul

1st Plaintiff

Cheung Hing Cheong

2nd Plaintiff

Wu Siu Fan

1st Defendant

Yip Wai Ki

2nd Defendant

Yip Yuk Chee Juspine

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any triable issue requiring leave to defend
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs as registered co-owners were ousted and entitled to occupation rent
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant could rely on a third party's (Chen's) separate title litigation as a defence between co-owners

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to defend was refused and summary judgment granted because the 1st defendant's only substantive defence sought to litigate a third party's competing title (Chen) in parallel; there was no triable issue between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant on the pleaded facts and the plaintiffs, as registered co-owners, were entitled to an inquiry and payment of their 1/6 share of occupation rent.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for plaintiffs; leave to defend refused as to 1st defendant

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant with costs of the action
  • Order for an inquiry into the sum due to the plaintiffs representing 1/6 of the rental or other income/occupation rent from 10 June 2016 to date