WONG KAM WING AND ANOTHER v. VYRIL MURKIN (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

WONG KAM WING AND ANOTHER v. VYRIL MURKIN (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Priority between competing charging orders is determined by the order of registration of the charging order nisi; because the charging order nisi made on 19 May 1988 was registered on 26 May 1988 before the 5 May 1988 nisi was registered on 3 June 1988, the 1st Defendant's charging order (now assigned to the 3rd Defendant) takes priority; assignment transfers that priority to the assignee.

Citation
WONG KAM WING AND ANOTHER v. VYRIL MURKIN (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: WONG KAM WING; 2nd Plaintiff: CHOI SUN HE; 1st Defendant: CYRIL MURKIN (H.K.) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: RICKY DESIGN & DECORATION LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: PARK RI CHIK trading as BLACK LEOPARD FUR & JEWELS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 1989
Case Number
HCMP1722/1988
Procedural Posture
High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings Charging Order / Judgment (priority Determination)
Outcome
3rd Defendant (assignee of 1st Defendant) entitled to priority over 2nd Defendant in respect of the surplus proceeds
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Priority of Registered Charges, Registration of Memorials, Assignment of Charging Order
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Registration Equity Secured Transactions Charging Order Priority of Registered Charges Registration of Memorials Assignment of Charging Order

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG KAM WING

1st Plaintiff

CHOI SUN HE

2nd Plaintiff

CYRIL MURKIN (H.K.) LIMITED

1st Defendant

RICKY DESIGN & DECORATION LIMITED

2nd Defendant

PARK RI CHIK trading as BLACK LEOPARD FUR & JEWELS

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings Charging Order / Judgment (priority Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether priority between competing charging orders is determined by the date of registration of the charging order nisi or by the registration of the charging order absolute
  2. 2 Whether an assignee of the holder of a charging order succeeds to the priority of that charging order
  3. 3 Whether fractions of a day and memorial numbering can determine priority when registrations occur the same day

Ratio Decidendi

Priority between competing charging orders is determined by the order of registration of the charging order nisi; because the charging order nisi made on 19 May 1988 was registered on 26 May 1988 before the 5 May 1988 nisi was registered on 3 June 1988, the 1st Defendant's charging order (now assigned to the 3rd Defendant) takes priority; assignment transfers that priority to the assignee.

Court Disposition

3rd Defendant (assignee of 1st Defendant) entitled to priority over 2nd Defendant in respect of the surplus proceeds

Orders

  • Declared that the charging order registered first (memorial for charging order nisi registered 26 May 1988) has priority and that priority passes to the 3rd Defendant by assignment
  • The court will hear counsel on the precise form of order and on costs