MAN WA TONG (SUING BY ITS MANAGERESSES FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS) V. SHIH CHAO JUNG AND ANOTHER

[2025] HKCA 127 Court of Appeal 7 February 2025 • CACV90/2020 • 7 min read

1 cases cited (0 HK, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Application granted

we hereby grant the application of HKBA to continue to deal with the relevant matters in this appeal in the capacity as the interim administrator/manager of Man Wa Tong.

Source: [2025] HKCA 127, Court of Appeal, decided 7 February 2025. Read directly from the judgment.

Judges (2)

Cheung Coram Chu Coram

Counsel (1)

Liu, Chan and Lam Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (3)

All Other Persons in Occupation of That Part of Lot No 1255 Rp in Dd 453, Namely the Disputed Portion of Kwun Yam Ngam and the Disputed Slope As Defined in the Re-Amended Statement of Claim Defendant Man Wa Tong ( Plaintiff Shih Chao Jung Defendant

Case Significance

Man Wa Tong (Suing by Its Manageresses for Themselves and Others) v. Shih Chao Jung and Another [2025] HKCA 127 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 7 February 2025 arising under the New Territories Ordinance, including section 15, and considered alongside the Rules of the High Court. The Court held: 'we hereby grant the application of HKBA to continue to deal with the relevant matters in this appeal in the capacity as the interim administrator/manager of Man Wa Tong.' The decision draws on the earlier ruling in [2020] HKCFI 417.

Summary

Long-running land dispute between Man Wa Tong (a Buddhist religious tong) and Shih Chao Jung concerning Kwun Yam Ngam temple property in the New Territories (DD 453). The Court of Appeal addressed the substitution of the Hong Kong Buddhist Association as interim administrator/manager of Man Wa Tong as plaintiff. The judgment was translated from Chinese and the 1st defendant appeared in person.

What did the Court of Appeal decide regarding HKBA's role in Man Wa Tong (Suing by Its Manageresses for Themselves and Others) v. Shih Chao Jung and Another [2025] HKCA 127?

The Court of Appeal held: 'we hereby grant the application of HKBA to continue to deal with the relevant matters in this appeal in the capacity as the interim administrator/manager of Man Wa Tong,' arising under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance.

Which ordinance provisions applied in Man Wa Tong v. Shih Chao Jung and Another [2025] HKCA 127?

The Court of Appeal decision was grounded in the New Territories Ordinance, including section 15, and considered alongside the Rules of the High Court, in an application concerning the interim administration of Man Wa Tong.