Brother and sister on opposite sides in land battle

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 30 April, 2011, 12:00am
UPDATED : Saturday, 30 April, 2011, 12:00am


The unnamed 'seventh defendant' in the Mei Foo case became a source of embarrassment for the developer and its lawyer in court yesterday.

Lawmaker 'Long Hair' Leung Kwok-hung, who identified himself as a seventh defendant, said it was a 'lie' that the developer had been unable to name the 'other persons' it accused of entering the building site or interfering with its right to use a nearby private road.

Leung then said that Civic Party lawmaker Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, who had joined him and three other lawmakers in a lie-down protest outside the site on April 3 that was widely broadcast, was the elder sister of the developer's lawyer Benjamin Yu SC.

'Audrey and Benjamin are family. [Benjamin] has no reason to say he can't identify her. I respect him but I wonder why his client said it couldn't identify anyone?

'Everyone knows me. My phone number and email address are online ... It's impossible they can't find me. This is the greatest insult to the legal process,' Leung said, causing laughter to break out in the court.

Eu, also a senior counsel who has advised Mei Foo residents, was in court yesterday but did not comment.

Yu became involved in a heated exchange during the proceedings when he argued that Mei Foo residents who consider the developer's high-rise project illegal should take legal action to stop it rather than physically blocking the construction trucks.

A resident in the public gallery shouted that they had no money for legal action.

Yu retorted: 'No money doesn't mean you are the winner. Poor people should have other ways to deal with the situation instead of physically stopping people to build a tower.'

This remark angered the first of the six named defendants, district councillor Wong Tak-chuen. Conducting his own defence, Wong said the government had made him believe for years that the site was unsuitable for tall buildings.

'If you say people with no money are not the winners, then is it those who have money that are the winners?'