Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary procedure (order 113)

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2015

TONG KWOK KEUNG v. TONG KWOK KEE

Citation

TONG KWOK KEUNG v. TONG KWOK KEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2470/2014

Summary possession under Order 113 refused because there exist substantial and credible factual disputes about beneficial ownership and right of occupation (including evidence of continuous occupation since childhood and an extant will suggesting father's interest) that require pleadings and a full trial; thus summary procedure is inappropriate and the proceedings must continue as if begun by writ.
29 Aug 2008

RICAS PROPERTIES LTD v. ARMED FORCES TRADING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RICAS PROPERTIES LTD v. ARMED FORCES TRADING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP75/2008

Summary possession under O.113 was refused because credible, triable issues exist: it is arguable the grandson acquired possessory title by adverse possession (successive adverse occupation aggregates against the registered owner) and there is a triable issue whether the 3rd defendant occupies under a tenancy (or at least has sufficient interest to defend). Consequently the matter must proceed to full trial and be continued as if commenced by writ.
12 May 1998

DIREK MAHADUMRONGKUL v. LAU CHUN KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

DIREK MAHADUMRONGKUL v. LAU CHUN KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2858/1997

There were triable issues of fact and law—particularly as to the extent of the right of way, whether parking rights were acquired by prescription, and whether there was acquiescence or estoppel—so Order 113 summary procedure was inappropriate; the appropriate course was to continue proceedings as if begun by writ and direct pleadings to be filed, with costs of the appeal awarded to the defendants.
3 Apr 1992

THE "STAR" FERRY CO LTD v. CHUEN WAH TRADING CO LTD

Citation

THE "STAR" FERRY CO LTD v. CHUEN WAH TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP647/1992

The judge held that on the evidence the defendant had made out a sufficient case of proprietary estoppel to require a full trial rather than summary determination under Order 113; accordingly the matter must proceed with proper pleadings, discovery and trial to resolve whether the alleged assurances constitute an enforceable equity.
12 Dec 1989

VIPAC ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS LTD v. MARK KARPOVICH AND ANOTHER

Citation

VIPAC ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS LTD v. MARK KARPOVICH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3093/1989

The licence to occupy the flat was ancillary to the defendant's employment and therefore terminated with the contract of employment; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession under Order 113 despite the defendant's claim of wrongful dismissal, because the legal issue was capable of only one determination in the plaintiff's favour.

Hong Kong Case Law

TONG KWOK KEUNG v. TONG KWOK KEE

RICAS PROPERTIES LTD v. ARMED FORCES TRADING CO LTD AND OTHERS

DIREK MAHADUMRONGKUL v. LAU CHUN KEUNG AND OTHERS

THE "STAR" FERRY CO LTD v. CHUEN WAH TRADING CO LTD

VIPAC ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS LTD v. MARK KARPOVICH AND ANOTHER