THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. SUN JIANGRONG

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. SUN JIANGRONG

The court refused the application to intervene and for adjournment and ordered sale because the intended intervener produced no credible evidence of a proprietary interest, her material was belated and inexcusable, and her conduct appeared designed to delay enforcement; accordingly the sale order and consequential costs and payment directions were justified.

Citation
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. SUN JIANGRONG
Parties
Plaintiff (judgment Creditor): The Bank of New York Mellon; Defendant (judgment Debtor): Sun Jiangrong; Intended Intervener: Yuan Ping
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Case Number
HCMP887/2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Sale of Property Subject to a Charging Order Absolute / Hearing in Court of First Instance on Application to Sell Charged Property and Application to Intervene; Decision Issued
Outcome
Application for sale granted; application to intervene and application for adjournment dismissed; costs awarded
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Order for Sale, Intervention, Leave to Adduce Evidence, Costs, Adjournment and Delay, Priority of Charges
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Debt Enforcement Civil Procedure Charging Order Order for Sale Intervention Leave to Adduce Evidence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Bank of New York Mellon

Plaintiff (judgment Creditor)

Sun Jiangrong

Defendant (judgment Debtor)

Yuan Ping

Intended Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application for Sale of Property Subject to a Charging Order Absolute / Hearing in Court of First Instance on Application to Sell Charged Property and Application to Intervene; Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order sale of the property subject to the charging order
  2. 2 Whether the intended intervener has an enforceable beneficial interest to justify intervention
  3. 3 Whether to grant an adjournment and leave to file further evidence after non-compliance with court directions

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application to intervene and for adjournment and ordered sale because the intended intervener produced no credible evidence of a proprietary interest, her material was belated and inexcusable, and her conduct appeared designed to delay enforcement; accordingly the sale order and consequential costs and payment directions were justified.

Court Disposition

Application for sale granted; application to intervene and application for adjournment dismissed; costs awarded

Orders

  • Order for sale of the property granted pursuant to the Charging Order Absolute dated 30 December 2011
  • Defendant to pay half the costs wasted by the intervening process