JIM KIU t/a SANDWIN INTERIOR CONTRACTOR v. MADAM LAM LEE CHU

JIM KIU t/a SANDWIN INTERIOR CONTRACTOR v. MADAM LAM LEE CHU

Court rejected Lam's contention that the 17890/92 indebtedness had been satisfied and found no enforceable agreement absolving the creditor of applying to discharge the charging order; nevertheless, exercising its discretion under s.19 Cap.128 and having regard to inordinate delay and other circumstances, the court ordered withdrawal of the 26/10/06 affirmation from Deeds Pending Registration and made a costs award (no order as to costs for the discharge application; respondent to pay 60% of applicant's costs for DCMP 2091/09).

Citation
JIM KIU t/a SANDWIN INTERIOR CONTRACTOR v. MADAM LAM LEE CHU
Parties
Applicant; Judgment Debtor; Owner of the Property: Lam Lee Chu; Respondent; Judgment Creditor: Jim Kiu
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Case Number
DCCJ8133/1992
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Charging Order (dccj 8133/92) and Application to Withdraw/vacate Lis Pendens (dcmp 2091/09) / Decision on Merits and Costs (judgment Delivered 28 January 2010)
Outcome
Application to discharge the charging order (DCCJ 8133/92): no order as to costs. Application to withdraw/vacate the 26/10/06 affirmation (DCMP 2091/09): affirmation withdrawn from Deeds Pending Registration; respondent ordered to pay 60% of applicant's costs for that application.
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Lis Pendens, Vacation of Registration, Indemnity Costs, Delay in Enforcement, Agreement/accord and Satisfaction
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Land Registration Debt Enforcement Costs Charging Order Lis Pendens Vacation of Registration +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Lee Chu

Applicant; Judgment Debtor; Owner of the Property

Jim Kiu

Respondent; Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Charging Order (dccj 8133/92) and Application to Withdraw/vacate Lis Pendens (dcmp 2091/09) / Decision on Merits and Costs (judgment Delivered 28 January 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging order in DCCJ 8133/92 was satisfied and who was obliged to apply for its discharge
  2. 2 Whether the 26/10/06 affirmation (lis pendens) in 17890/92 should be withdrawn/vacated under s.19 Land Registration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether delay in prosecuting enforcement constituted lack of bona fides or other good cause to vacate the lis

Ratio Decidendi

Court rejected Lam's contention that the 17890/92 indebtedness had been satisfied and found no enforceable agreement absolving the creditor of applying to discharge the charging order; nevertheless, exercising its discretion under s.19 Cap.128 and having regard to inordinate delay and other circumstances, the court ordered withdrawal of the 26/10/06 affirmation from Deeds Pending Registration and made a costs award (no order as to costs for the discharge application; respondent to pay 60% of applicant's costs for DCMP 2091/09).

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the charging order (DCCJ 8133/92): no order as to costs. Application to withdraw/vacate the 26/10/06 affirmation (DCMP 2091/09): affirmation withdrawn from Deeds Pending Registration; respondent ordered to pay 60% of applicant's costs for that application.

Orders

  • No order as to costs of and incidental to Lam's summons to discharge and to vacate the registration of the charging order in DCCJ 8133/92.
  • The 26/10/06 affirmation is to be withdrawn from Deeds Pending Registration in the Land Registry.