HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Civil Action2019

張鴻元及另二人 對 MAT NG JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF CHANG STANLEY及另一人

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR2/2004律政司司長 訴 HKL及另一人
  • CACC291/2021律政司司長 對 IPFUND ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD及另一人
  • CACV101/2020SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO 及另一人
  • CACV157/2016WKP 對 MR CHARLES CHIU CHUNG YEE 及另一人
  • CACV190/2019KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) 對 WU YUK CHUN JUDY 及另一人
  • CACV196/2010TANG KAP WING TSO v. TANG LEUK TSO AND OTHERS
  • CACV226/1999WONG WAH WING ALEX 及另一人 訴 LEE PO LAI 及另一人
  • CACV243/2005匠心髮型(商號) 訴 THE SUN NEWS LTD 及另一人
  • CACV311/2004TANG WING PUI 訴 HO PUI LING 及另一人
  • CACV360/2022ZHANG RONG 對 PO SHING CONSTRUCTION LTD及另一人
  • CACV483/2022LCSJ 對 LSHA及另一人
  • CACV553/2020YUEN OI YEE LISA 對 NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人
  • CACV560/2001LAU KWONG HING t/a 樂氏皮褸 訴 LUK CHI KEUNG 及另一人
  • CACV593/2020LAI KA WAI 對 MEI FAI HONG KONG ENGINEERING LTD 及另一人
  • CACV7/2011富利達集團有限公司 對 CHEER STRONG CORPORATION LTD 及另一人
  • CACV86/2009CHUN SUN KONG JOSEPH AND ANOTHER t/a LASER CAD DESIGN 訴 SKY ARCHITECTURAL SIGNAGE LTD
  • CACV96/2013魏岳鵬及另一人 對 李善鈺
  • CAMP100/2022SKK (H.K.) CO LTD 及另一人 對 TSUI PO HING 及另一人
  • CAMP116/2019TSOI LAU FU 及另一人 對 PANG WAN FONG 及另二人
  • CAMP118/2018啟德花園(彩虹道)業主立案法團 對 WOO TAK YAN 及另一人

Files (2)

[2024] HKCFI 813-CH-2024-03-18

張鴻元及另二人 對 MAT NG JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF CHANG STANLEY及另一人

HTML content

HCA 2428/2019

[2024] HKCFI 813

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

民事司法管轄權

民事訴訟案件2019年第2428號

________________________

第一原告人CHANG STANLEY (張鴻元)
第二原告人CHEUNG WAI MING (張惠明)
第三原告人CHEONG PAK IOK (張白玉)
及
第一被告人MAT NG JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF CHANG STANLEY
第二被告人JORTON AS (formerly known as JOTRON ELECTRONICS AS)

________________________

主審法官:高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官萬可宜內庭聆訊
聆訊日期:2024年2月28日
判決日期:2024年3月22日

判決書

背景

1.  第一原告人於2021年10月19日以傳票申請修改申索陳述書。聆案官於2021年10月28日頒下命令:

(1)  剔除:

(a)  草擬修改陳述書中所有提及證據文件的字眼(即「(證據.1)」等);

(b)  第27段第2句(即「從Mr. Mat Ng在2019年10月……」)起至第57段全部內容;

(c)  第58(4) 及58(5) 段;

(d)  草擬修改陳述書夾附的所有證據文件。

(2)  命令原定2021年11月23日上午10:30舉行的案件管理傳票聆訊取消,改為2022年5月25日上午10:30在內庭聆案官席前舉行,及

(3)  原告人須支付被告人因上述狀書修訂而招致的訟費。(「該命令」)

2.  第一原告人就該命令提出上訴。

法律原則

3.  針對聆案官的上訴,法庭會以重審的方式處理。(見2023 年《香港民事程序》第58/1/2 段)。

4.  申請修改狀書的一方有責任說服法庭,其要求作出的修改是有需要,及對於公平處理該訴訟有幫助,或可以減少訟費[1]。

上訴

5.  第一原告人認為,由於案件在遞交原申索陳述書後發生了很大的變化,而該等變化跟原來案件關係密切,都需要法官審理裁決,因此必須將2019年12月30日原申索陳述書遞交後的事項加入原本案件,而毋需另起一個案件進行審理。

6.  在考慮第一原告人就申索陳述書作出的修改是否有需要、對於公平處理本訴訟是否有幫助,或是否可以減少訟費前,法庭必須先確定原告人的訴因究竟是甚麼。

7.  第一原告人是一名破產人士,第一被告人是其破產產業受託人。在原申索陳述書中,第一原告人主要要求第一被告人不將其將軍澳翠林邨秀林樓446室住所(「該物業」)變賣,以償還第一原告人的債務。第一原告人宣稱購買該物業的款項由第二被告人張惠明提供,該物業實質由張惠明擁有,因此該物業並非破產產業一部份。

8.  在確認第一原告人的訴因後,本席在考慮第一原告人的修改草擬本後,認為第一原告人以下希望作出的修改並不是有需要、對於公平處理本訴訟沒有幫助,及會增加訟費:

(1)  草擬修改陳述書第22 – 24、30 – 31、33及53 – 54段基本上是第一原告人自身就2019年7月之後發生的事宜(包括第一原告人或第一被告人向法院作出的申請)的理解作出的陳述、指稱或陳詞。該等事項均屬法庭程序,毋需於申索陳述書列出。

(2)  草擬修改陳述書第25 – 26、32、34及40 – 41段列出第一被告人信件等等。該等文件及其內容乃證據之一部份,並不適宜於申索陳述書列出。

(3)  草擬修改陳述書第27 – 29、35 – 39、42 – 52及55 – 57段乃第一原告人的陳詞,當中不乏第一原告人對第一被告人作出的種種指控。申索陳述書不應包含任何陳詞。如第一原告人希望作出陳詞,應在審訊中的陳詞大綱中列出。

(4)  就草擬修改陳述書第58(4) 及58(5) 段要求的濟助,本席認為第一原告人沒有基礎指稱第一被告人惡意拖延,亦沒有基礎支持第一原告人失去珠海生意是由第一被告人所致。

9.  第一原告人以上擬就申索陳述書作出的修改並不符合有需要、對於公平處理本訴訟有幫助的條件。如法庭准許該等修改,不但會增加訟費,更會延誤本案進程。

10.  聆案官押後案件管理傳票聆訊乃因第一原告人修改申索陳述書需時,第一被告人亦有權作出相應修改,並不存在聆案官為了讓第一被告人申請更換被告人而延遲聆訊一說。

訟費及命令

11.  第一原告人的上訴申請被撤銷,理應由他支付訟費,但第一被告人及第二被告人希望保留訟費,以助各方嘗試進行和解。

12.  綜合上述,本庭駁回第一原告人就該命令的上訴,訟費保留。

 

 

 (萬可宜)
高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官
原告人:無律師代表,親自出庭應訊
第一被告人:無律師代表,親自出庭應訊
第二被告人:由李紹基律師事務所鄭嘉莉律師代表

 

 

 



[1] 2024 年《香港民事程序》第20/8/4段

[2021] HKCFI 3403-EN-2021-11-12

CHANG STANLEY AND OTHERS v. MAT NG JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF CHANG STANLEY

HTML content

HCB 1454/2015

[2021] HKCFI 3403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 1454 OF 2015

________________________

RE:  STANLEY CHANG (張鴻元)  TRADING AS
HONG INSTECH TRADING CO.
Debtor
 JOTRON AS (formerly known as JOTRON ELECTRONICS AS),Applicant
 MAT NG AND JOHN LEES JOINT AND
SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY
OF CHANG STANLEY
Respondent

________________________

and

HCA 2428/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2428 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

 CHANG STANLEY (張鴻元)1st Plaintiff
 JOTRONCHEUNG WAI MING (張惠明)2nd Plaintiff
 CHEONG PAK IOK (張白玉)3rd Plaintiff
 and 
 MAT NG JOINT AND SEVERAL
TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY
OF CHANG STANLEY
Defendant 

________________________

Before:  Mr Recorder William Wong SC in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions by Applicant in HCB 1454/2015:  3 September 2021

Date of Written Submissions by Debtor in HCB 1454/2015:  18 September 2021

Date of Decision:  12 November 2021

________________________

DECISION

________________________


1.  The Applicant, Jotron AS (formerly known as Jotron Electronics AS)  is the petitioning creditor in HCB 1454 of 2015. I am told that it holds 91% of the total indebtedness of Chang Stanley (the “Bankrupt”). There are two other creditors, namely, the Inland Revenue Department and Orix Asia Limited.

2.  The Applicant did not agree with a settlement proposed by the Trustees. Hence, it wishes to take over the conduct of the proceedings.

3.  The present Trustees, namely, Mat Ng and John Robert Lees, Joint and Several Trustees of the Property of Chang Stanley, informed this Court that they have no more funding to continue the proceedings, hence, they have no choice but to propose to settle with the Plaintiffs in HCA2428 of 2019.

4.  Both Trustees have informed the Court that they have no objection to the application to sanction an assignment of the Trustees’ cause of action under section 43A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and/or as pleaded in the Defence and Counterclaim in HCA 2428 of 2019 from the Trustees to the Applicant.

5.  When this matter was first heard before this Court, I had  reservation on whether the Trustees can assign away their liabilities and to be struck off as a defendant in HCA 2428 of 2019.

6.  After the adjournment, the Applicant has now entered into a new assignment with the Trustees such that only the Trustees’ cause(s)  of action and rights (and not their liabilities)  are assigned.

7.  As a matter of law, a cause of action is assignable. The Trustees are willing to assign such rights and the Applicant is willing to take over the said rights. The Court will facilitate the assignment by sanctioning the same.

8.  The Applicant has also reassured the Court that it will recognise the priority of the Inland Revenue Department’s debt and will treat the other debtor ORIX Asia Ltd pari passu with its own claims. No response has been received from ORIX Asia Ltd after enquiries were made by the Applicant.

9.  I note that the Inland Revenue, by its letter dated 13 September 2021, indicated that it has no comment on the proposed assignment.

10.  In the circumstances, I will make the following orders:

(1)  An Order to sanction the assignment from the Trustees to the Applicant of the Trustees’ cause(s)  of action under section 43A of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and the cause(s)  of action as pleaded in the Defence and Counterclaim in HCA2428 of 2019.

(2)  The title deeds of the property situated at Flat No.46 on 4th Floor of Sau Lam House (Block 2), Tsui Lam Estate, No.11 Tsui Lam Road, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong be delivered to the Applicant’s solicitors, Messrs. Ernest Li & Co, upon execution of the Deed of Assignment.

(3)  The Applicant be joined as an additional defendant in HCA 2428 of 2019.

(4)  The Applicant will satisfy any orders or judgments for costs and damages or compensation to the Plaintiffs incurred at any time prior to and after the date hereof.

11.  I do not see it fit to substitute the Applicant in place of the Trustees as the Defendant as I am not sure whether the Plaintiffs in HCA 2428 of 2019 have any specific claims against the Trustees. It is up to the Trustees to decide whether they can take out applications to strike out the claims against them after the assignment as sanctioned by this Court.

12.  By letter dated 18 September 2021, Mr Stanley Chang, one of the Plaintiff has filed a written submission to oppose the substitution of the Applicant as the Defendant in HCA 2428 of 2019. As this Court has not made any order of substitution but to allow the Applicant, as an interested party, to be joined in as an additional defendant, I am of the view that in the best interest of the administration of the bankruptcy, the orders as listed out in paragraph 9 should be made and I do so accordingly.

13.  I also make no order on costs.

(William Wong SC)
Recorder of the High Court

Mr Neil Thomson, instructed by Ernest Li & Co., for the Applicant in HCB 1454/2015

The Respondents in HCB 1454/2015 and the Defendant in HCA 2428/2019 appeared in person

The Debtor in HCB 1454/2015 and the Plaintiffs in HCA 2428/2019 were not represented and did not appear

Attendance of the Official Receiver was excused