E FINANCE LTD v. MAK MUN YEE CONNIE AND ANOTHER

E FINANCE LTD v. MAK MUN YEE CONNIE AND ANOTHER

The court found the Company advanced the loan and held a valid registered Legal Charge; Doo failed to prove her allegations of fraud or a secret reconveyance agreement because her evidence was uncorroborated and not credible; Li and Wong did not have authority to bind the Company and Golden Express acted as introducer only. Consequently the Company was entitled to enforce the Legal Charge and obtain vacant possession; Doo's broader claims were dismissed but Doo proved non-payment of the HK$2,500,000 initial sum and HK$400,000 stamp duty by Connie, so judgment against Connie was entered for those sums.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 862
Parties
Plaintiff (hcmp 219/2020); 4th Defendant (hca 1876/2021): E Finance Limited; 1st Defendant (hcmp 219/2020); 3rd Defendant (hca 1876/2021): Mak Mun Yee Connie; 2nd Defendant (hcmp 219/2020); Plaintiff (hca 1876/2021): Doo Sze Ying; 1st Defendant (hca 1876/2021): Ho Yuet Sang; 2nd Defendant (hca 1876/2021): Li Cho Chuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Case Number
HCMP219/2020
Procedural Posture
Combined Mortgage Enforcement (hcmp) and Proprietary/fraud Action (hca) / Trial — Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Company's claim allowed; Company entitled to vacant possession. All claims of Doo dismissed except judgment against Connie for HK$2,500,000 and HK$400,000. Costs awarded as ordered.
Legal Topics
Legal Charge Enforcement, Vacant Possession, Assignment and Conveyance, Fraudulent Inducement, Agent/agency and Vicarious Liability, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Equity Contract Moneylending Fraud Civil Procedure Legal Charge Enforcement Vacant Possession +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E Finance Limited

Plaintiff (hcmp 219/2020); 4th Defendant (hca 1876/2021)

Mak Mun Yee Connie

1st Defendant (hcmp 219/2020); 3rd Defendant (hca 1876/2021)

Doo Sze Ying

2nd Defendant (hcmp 219/2020); Plaintiff (hca 1876/2021)

Ho Yuet Sang

1st Defendant (hca 1876/2021)

Li Cho Chuen

2nd Defendant (hca 1876/2021)

Procedural Posture

Combined Mortgage Enforcement (hcmp) and Proprietary/fraud Action (hca) / Trial — Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Charge and loan were valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Assignment and FSPA were void for fraud or for want of consideration
  3. 3 Whether the Company is liable for alleged fraud by introducers/agents (Li, Wong)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Company advanced the loan and held a valid registered Legal Charge; Doo failed to prove her allegations of fraud or a secret reconveyance agreement because her evidence was uncorroborated and not credible; Li and Wong did not have authority to bind the Company and Golden Express acted as introducer only. Consequently the Company was entitled to enforce the Legal Charge and obtain vacant possession; Doo's broader claims were dismissed but Doo proved non-payment of the HK$2,500,000 initial sum and HK$400,000 stamp duty by Connie, so judgment against Connie was entered for those sums.

Court Disposition

Company's claim allowed; Company entitled to vacant possession. All claims of Doo dismissed except judgment against Connie for HK$2,500,000 and HK$400,000. Costs awarded as ordered.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for E Finance Limited and the Company is granted delivery of vacant possession of Flat No.2104 Block F Healthy Gardens and all title deeds/documents in Doo's possession on or before 30 May 2025
  • Judgment entered against Mak Mun Yee Connie for HK$2,500,000 and HK$400,000