THOMAS VINCENT v. CHEUNG LAI SHUEN AND ANOTHER

THOMAS VINCENT v. CHEUNG LAI SHUEN AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff's claim was a hybrid claim including loss of earnings and therefore, upon the bankruptcy order, the conduct of the action vested in the Official Receiver; the plaintiff lacked locus standi to apply to amend or prosecute the claim absent action by the OR or an application under s.83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; accordingly the Master's order dismissing the summons and dismissing the action was correct and is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
THOMAS VINCENT v. CHEUNG LAI SHUEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Vincent; 1st Defendant: Cheung Lai Shuen; 2nd Defendant: Hon Wing Hoi
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 April 2017
Case Number
DCPI2230/2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Appeal (hearing De Novo)
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Order of Master Rita So dated 13 December 2016 affirmed; Action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Vested Conduct of Action, Locus Standi, Hybrid Claim, Discontinuance, Costs
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Personal Injury Vested Conduct of Action Locus Standi Hybrid Claim Discontinuance Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Vincent

Plaintiff

Cheung Lai Shuen

1st Defendant

Hon Wing Hoi

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Appeal (hearing De Novo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's cause of action vested in the Official Receiver following bankruptcy
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to amend the statement of claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim was a hybrid claim (pain and suffering plus loss of earnings) and thus under OR conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was a hybrid claim including loss of earnings and therefore, upon the bankruptcy order, the conduct of the action vested in the Official Receiver; the plaintiff lacked locus standi to apply to amend or prosecute the claim absent action by the OR or an application under s.83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance; accordingly the Master's order dismissing the summons and dismissing the action was correct and is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; Order of Master Rita So dated 13 December 2016 affirmed; Action dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's Appeal be dismissed.
  • The Order by Master Rita So dated 13 December 2016 be affirmed.