KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TSE TAT HUNG

HCA004743/1999

HCA 4734/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4734 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
SUEN KWING HANG Defendant

______________

HCA 4736/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4736 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
NG KAI YIN Defendant

______________

HCA 4737/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4737 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
CHEUNG KIN BONG 1st Defendant
CHEUNG KIN KWOK 2nd Defendant

______________

HCA 4738/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4738 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
MAK CHI YIN STEVE 1st Defendant
CHOY WING HAN CANDY 2nd Defendant

______________

HCA 4739/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4739 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
SZETO CHUNG Defendant

______________

HCA 4740/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4740 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
YIP HO YIN Defendant

______________

HCA 4741/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4741 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
MAN MEI FUNG Defendant

______________

HCA 4742/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4742 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
YUNG SHUI FUNG NANCY Defendant

______________

HCA 4743/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4743 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
TSE TAT HUNG Defendant

______________

HCA 4744/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4744 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
NG KAI HUNG MANFRED Defendant

______________

HCA 4745/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4745 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
CHENG CHAU YIN ANN Defendant

______________

HCA 4747/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4747 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
CHAN PING NAM Defendant

______________

HCA 7849/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 7849 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
YU MAN BUN Defendant

______________

HCA 7851/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 7851 OF 1999

______________

BETWEEN
KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
MAN MEI WA POLLY Defendant

______________

(Heard together)

Coram: The Honourable Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 16 November 1999

Date of Delivery of Judgement: 16 November 1999

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an application for summary judgment in 14 actions. The Plaintiff is the same in all 14 actions.

2. The Plaintiff is the owner of a property which was under development. In 1996, a company by the name of Full Country assigned theproperty to the Plaintiff. Sometime in 1998, a person by the name of Cheng Kwok Fai purportedly acted for the Plaintiff in signingagreements for the sale and purchase of uncompleted units in the property to a number of persons including the 14 defendants in theseactions. Messrs. Ho & Chan, Solicitors purported to act as the Plaintiff’s solicitors and to accept the deposits as stakeholders.

3. However, it is clear from the evidence now that Cheng Kwok Fai was never authorized by the Plaintiff to execute these agreementson its behalf and Messrs. Ho & Chan were never appointed the Plaintiff’s solicitors for those purposes.

4. Hence, these applications for summary judgment on the part of the Plaintiff for various declaratory relief. Although some of theparties had purported to sign consent summonses in relation to these applications, by reason of the fact that declaratory reliefwas being sought, the Court did not accept the consent summonses, and I have therefore looked into the evidence in question.

5. At one point, I was concerned about the fact that in a statutory declaration by Mr. Chan Kwok Yim, a solicitor of Messrs. Ho &Chan, he made reference to a number of documents which could only have been in the control of the Plaintiff as the owner of the property,and therefore, I was concerned about any possible point of holding out on the part of the Plaintiff of Ho & Chan as its solicitors.However, a subsequent affirmation which has since been filed reveals the process whereby Ho & Chan could have obtained thesedocuments, and they were not for the purpose of the present agreements or anything to do with the present agreements.

6. In the premises, I would declare that the 14 agreements in question purportedly made between the Plaintiff of the one part and theDefendants as purchasers of the other part are not binding on the Plaintiff and are, as against the Plaintiff, absolutely null andvoid and I would declare that the Defendants are not entitled to register the agreements in the Land Registry. Of the 14 agreementsin question, some have been registered in the Land Registry, some are “pending registration” and some have not been submitted forregistration at all.

7. I would further declare that the Defendants be restrained, whether by themselves their servants agents or solicitors or any of themor otherwise howsoever, from registering or causing to be registered the agreements in question in the Land Registry, and in relationto those agreements where they have already been registered, namely in actions No. 4736 of 1999, 4739 of 1999, 4741 of 1999 and 4745of 1999, I would order that the registration be vacated. The Plaintiff is not seeking in this summons damages or costs. Accordingly,there will be no order as to costs.

(Maria Yuen)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr. Simon Leung instructed by Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co. for Plaintiffs in all these actions.

Mr. K.M. Cheung of Lau, Kwong & Hung for Defendants in HCA 4736/99 & HCA 4744/99.

Messrs. Ko & Co. for Defendant in HCA 4745/99 being absent.

Defendants in person in other actions being absent.