MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG v. SEVERN VILLA LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 243/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 243 OF 2011

____________________

IN THE MATTER of the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap 128
and
IN THE MATTER of Units “A” and “B” on the 1st Floor, Garden “B”, and Car Parking SpacesNo. 7 on the Ground Floor of Block A and Nos. 2 and 3 on the Ground Floor of Block B of No. 3 Severn Road, Hong Kong (as more particularlydescribed in Schedule A and Schedule B hereto) upon Rural Building Lot No. 155 and the extension thereto (the “Properties”)
and
IN THE MATTER of a resulting or constructive trust whereunder the Properties are held for the Plaintiffby the 1st Defendant hereto
and
IN THE MATTER of Order 113 of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A

____________________

HCMP 522/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 522 OF 2011

____________________
IN THE MATTER of Order 113 of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A
and
IN THE MATTER of the land and premises known as:
(a) Unit A of the 1st Floor, Severn Villa, 3 Severn Road, The Peak, Hong Kong;
(b) Unit B of the 1st Floor, Severn Villa, 3 Severn Road, The Peak, Hong Kong;
(c) Car Park Space Nos. 1 to 5 on the Ground Floor of Block B, Severn Villa, 3 Severn Road, The Peak,Hong Kong

____________________

BETWEEN

MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG Plaintiff
(also known as MIMI KAR GEE WONG HUNG)

and

SEVERN VILLA LIMITED 1st Defendant
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED 2nd Defendant
RAYMOND KIN SANG HUNG 3rd Defendant
APPLIED PROPERTIES LIMITED 4th Defendant
(Consolidated by the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Carlson dated 7 June 2011)

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 1 June 2012

Date of Delivery of Ruling: 1 June 2012

______________

R U L I N G

______________

1. I have got to approach this matter on the basis that the order that was made on 4 May obliged Miss Wong to leave this property,I

think it was on 3 June, and at the time, I refused an application for a stay.

2. Of course, the matter is now really put forward on the basis that there has been a change of circumstances. She has had these difficultiesin finding other suitable accommodation, and there is a complicating factor which I need to bear in mind, which is this extremelyvaluable collection of furniture that is accommodated at the property.

3. Mr Grossman, as he usually does, has put the matter attractively and very moderately by saying, “Please can we have a furtherjust over two weeks?” The evidence now seems to be firming up that Miss Wong does have a tenancy at Estoril Court, and what issaid is if I give her these two weeks, she will be able to move.

4. But the other side of the coin, as Mr Chan has drawn attention to, is the fact that although, of course, he recognises I have adiscretion in this matter, it is a rather narrow one in the circumstances of this case. The companies here are entitled to standon their legal rights, and having regard to the rather limited – it has been described as the last residual discretion – I have decidedto address that as best I can.

5. And so what I have decided to do, having heard Mr Grossman in reply, is that the right order is to grant his client an interim stayto 4 pm on Saturday, 9 June. I am going to have this relisted on 8 June, together with the divorce proceedings. That matter – thequestion of the furniture – is going to be reconsidered on that day. My advice – Mr Grossman hears what I say and no doubt he isgoing to tell his client – is that she must now take immediate steps to have this valuable collection removed by some specialistremoval company, and it can be stored there, and then I will decide on Friday what is to happen to the furniture.

6. Mr Benjamin Yu SC, who is not here today, because that aspect of it is not listed before me today, would wish me to make some sortof order preserving the furniture in the safekeeping of a particular storage company that specialises in the packing, transportationand storage of antiques. That can all be decided next Friday, when I will also decide how to finally dispose of this particularapplication today, and if I may, Mr Chan, I will just reserve the costs of today until next Friday.

(Discussion as to orders)

7. The stay is until 4 pm on next Saturday, but the case will be relisted on Friday, the 8th, at 9.30.

8. I will reserve these costs.

(Ian Carlson)
Deputy High Court Judge

Clive Grossman, SC, instructed by Messrs Ho & Ip, for the Plaintiff

Abraham Chan, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants