撤銷簡易判決及加入第二被告的條件？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED v FUNG TAK LOK (馮德樂) - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：林己正暫委法官 (His Honour Judge Gary C C Lam) - 判決日期：2025年2月14日 ### 案情摘要 原告香港平民屋宇有限公司（業主）向被告馮德樂（租客）發出傳訊令狀，要求收回物業管有權。原告聲稱租賃協議已於2022年7月31日屆滿，其後以按月租賃或按月暫准租賃形式繼續。原告於2023年11月30日向被告發出終止通知書，要求被告於2023年12月31日前遷出並交回空置管有權，但被告拒絕。由於被告未提交擬抗辯通知書，法院於2024年4月12日作出簡易判決。被告隨後申請撤銷簡易判決，並申請將其兄弟馮迪臣（Fung Dickson）列為第二被告。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二：一是被告申請撤銷因未提交擬抗辯通知書而作出的簡易判決，理由是其抗辯具有實質勝訴機會，特別是基於公共法原則提出的司法覆核抗辯。二是被告申請將其兄弟馮迪臣加入為第二被告，理由是馮迪臣的居住權利及安置安排亦受本案影響，且其司法覆核抗辯亦適用於馮迪臣。 ### 判決理由 法院裁定，由於被告的司法覆核抗辯具有實質勝訴機會，因此應撤銷簡易判決。法院引用案例說明公共法理據可構成私人申索的有效抗辯。對於加入第二被告的申請，法院認為馮迪臣對涉案物業不具備獨立的實質申索權利，其居住權利僅依附於租客。法院強調，加入被告必須確保其申索或抗辯具有認真待審的爭議點，且不應是明顯無意義或徒勞的。馮迪臣並非租賃協議的締約方，其權利不能對抗業主，且其個人情況應在司法覆核中提出，而非在此民事訴訟中。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例以支持其判決理由： - Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] 1 AC 461：確立公共法理據可構成私人申索的有效抗辯。 - North British Housing Association v Matthews [2005] 1 WLR 3133：重申公共法理據作為私人申索抗辯的原則。 - Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465：進一步確認公共法理據的適用性。 - 朱賽金 對 高等法院司法常務官 [2020] HKCA 914：強調訴訟人應遵守法律程序和實務指示。 - Elysium Ltd v Sum Ka Kuen Dominic [2023] 5 HKC 508：闡述加入申請的一般法律原則，特別是關於被加入方必須對訴訟標的物有直接相關利益。 - Yu Wing Kan v Lau Shuk Lan [1990] 2 HKLR 583：說明土地佔用人被加入為被告的條件，即必須有實質的獨立管有權利。 ### 裁決與命令 法院批准撤銷簡易判決的申請，但駁回將被告兄弟馮迪臣加入為第二被告的申請。關於訟費，法院裁定被告需支付原告撤銷簡易判決申請的訟費港幣75,000元。由於被告的律師未遵守實務指示14.3，法院對聆訊訟費給予20%折扣，即港幣3,516元扣減。經抵銷後，被告須向原告支付訟費港幣60,936元。加入申請的訟費由被告支付，經簡易評定為港幣90,000元。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在撤銷簡易判決時，若抗辯具有實質勝訴機會，即使被告有延誤，法院通常仍會行使酌情權予以撤銷。同時，本案明確指出，在加入訴訟方時，被加入方必須對訴訟標的物具有獨立且實質的權利或利益，而非僅僅是受訴訟結果影響的非締約方。法院亦嚴格執行實務指示，對未遵守訟費評定程序的律師給予訟費扣減的懲罰。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED v FUNG TAK LOK (馮德樂) - Court: District Court - Judge: His Honour Judge Gary C C Lam - Date of Judgment: 14 February 2025 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (landlord), issued a writ of summons against the defendant, Fung Tak Lok (tenant), seeking possession of the property. The plaintiff claimed that the tenancy agreement had expired on 31 July 2022 and continued on a monthly basis or as a month-to-month tenancy at will thereafter. On 30 November 2023, a notice of termination was served on the defendant, requiring the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession by 31 December 2023, but the defendant refused. As the defendant failed to file a notice of intention to defend, the Court entered default judgment on 12 April 2024. The defendant subsequently applied to set aside the default judgment and to join her brother, Fung Dickson, as the 2nd defendant. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were twofold: first, whether the defendant's application to set aside the default judgment, entered due to failure to file a notice of intention to defend, should be granted, particularly given her defence based on public law principles from a judicial review. Second, whether the defendant's application to join her brother, Fung Dickson, as the second defendant should be allowed, on the grounds that his right of residence and resettlement arrangements were also affected by the case, and that the judicial review defence applied to him. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court ruled that the default judgment should be set aside because the defendant's judicial review defence had a real prospect of success. It cited precedents establishing that public law grounds can constitute a valid defence to a private claim. Regarding the joinder application, the Court found that Fung Dickson did not possess an independent bona fide claim to the premises, as his right of residence was merely parasitic upon the tenant. The Court emphasized that for a party to be joined, their claim or defence must present a serious issue to be tried and not be plainly pointless or futile. Fung Dickson was not a party to the tenancy agreement, and his rights could not be enforced against the landlord; his personal circumstances should be raised in the judicial review, not in this civil action. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases to support its reasoning: - Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] 1 AC 461: Established that public law grounds can constitute a valid defence to a private claim. - North British Housing Association v Matthews [2005] 1 WLR 3133: Reaffirmed the principle of public law grounds as a defence to private claims. - Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465: Further confirmed the applicability of public law grounds. - HKSAR v Chu Sai Kam [2020] HKCA 914: Emphasized that litigants must comply with legal procedures and practice directions. - Elysium Ltd v Sum Ka Kuen Dominic [2023] 5 HKC 508: Outlined general legal principles for joinder applications, specifically requiring the joined party to have a direct interest in the subject matter of the action. - Yu Wing Kan v Lau Shuk Lan [1990] 2 HKLR 583: Explained conditions for joining an occupier of land as a defendant, requiring a bona fide independent claim to possession. ### Decision & Orders The application to set aside the default judgment was granted, but the application to join the defendant's brother, Fung Dickson, as the second defendant was dismissed. Regarding costs, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff costs of HK$75,000 for the setting-aside application. Due to the defendant's solicitors' non-compliance with Practice Direction 14.3, a 20% discount (HK$3,516 deduction) was applied to the hearing costs. After set-off, the defendant is to pay the plaintiff HK$60,936. The costs of the joinder application, summarily assessed at HK$90,000, are to be paid by the defendant. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that default judgments may be set aside if there is a real prospect of success in the defence, even with some delay. It also clarifies that for a party to be joined to proceedings, they must demonstrate an independent and substantive right or interest in the subject matter, not merely be affected by the outcome as a non-contracting party. The court also strictly enforces practice directions, penalizing solicitors for non-compliance with costs assessment procedures. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.