MAN FOR TAI AND OTHERS v. MAN PING NAM AND OTHERS

HCA007935A/1998

HCA 7935/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 7935 OF 1998

____________

BETWEEN
MAN FOR TAI (文伙泰) 1st Plaintiff
MAN FONG HANG (文晃恆)suing on his own or alternatively as surviving administrator of the estate of Man Mou Hei (文戊喜) alsospelt as Man Mo Hie, Man Mau Hei and Man Mo Hi and also known as Man Hei (文喜) 2nd Plaintiff
MAN TIM SUNG (文添送) 3rd Plaintiff
AND
MAN PING NAM (文炳南), MAN YING LAM (文英林) and MAN LEUNG (文良), Managers of MAN SHEK TSUNG (or CHUNG) WUI (文石涌會) Defendants

____________

AND

HCMP 2163/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2163 OF 1998

____________

IN THE MATTER of MAN MOU HEI TONG (文戊喜堂)

and

IN THE MATTER of a cheque no. 373872 drawn on Hang Seng Bank Limited in favour of Man Mou Hei Tong (文戊喜堂)

and

IN THE MATTER of Order 85, Rule 2 and Order 22, Rule 8 of the Rules of the High Court

____________

BETWEEN
MAN LEUNG (文良) 1st Plaintiff
MAN YING LAM (文英林) 2nd Plaintiff
MAN PING NAM (文炳南) 3rd Plaintiff
AND
MAN FOR TAI (文伙泰) 1st Defendant
MAN FONG HANG (文晃恆) 2nd Defendant
MAN TIM SUNG (文添送) 3rd Defendant
MAN WONG TIM TAI (文黃添娣) 4th Defendant

____________

(Heard together)

Coram: Hon Yuen J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 March 2000

Date of Decision: 17 March 2000

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. There are three summonses before me this morning. The one which has taken the most time is an application by Mr Fung’s clients fora variation of the costs order nisi which I made in my Judgment handed down on 21 October 1999.

2. That costs order nisi was made after hearing some argument from both counsel, and the reasons for that order have been set out orhighlighted at pages 15-17 of the Judgment. Nothing in Mr Fung’s submissions this morning are new. They had all been made the subjectof previous submissions to me, and even on more mature consideration of the issues which I have been asked to do today, I find thatafter consideration of the matters which are summarised briefly in my judgment and in the exercise of my discretion, I would declineto vary the order nisi as to costs.

3. As for the other summonses this morning, Mr Chan has indicated there is no objection to the application for leave to cease to beparties and for amendment of the Statement of Claim in the action. As far as the interest matter is concerned, Mr Fung has askedthat the matter be adjourned and Mr Chan has no objection to that.

(MARIA YUEN)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr Patrick Fung, SC, instructed by Baker & McKenzie, for 1st-3rd Plaintiffs in A7935/1998 and for 1st-4th Defendants in MP2163/1998

Mr Warren Chan, SC, instructed by David Y Y Fung, for Defendants in A7935/1998 and for 1st-3rd Plaintiffs in MP2163/1998