RICH PROSPER LTD v. YEUNG TING CHEUNG AND OTHERS

RICH PROSPER LTD v. YEUNG TING CHEUNG AND OTHERS

The plaintiff materially failed to disclose facts that were directly relevant to the ex‑parte application (findings of secret rental income and the 2nd/3rd defendants' equitable/chargee interests); that non‑disclosure entitled the court to set aside the ex‑parte order and consequent writ, refuse to re‑grant the order inter partes, and award indemnity costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Citation
RICH PROSPER LTD v. YEUNG TING CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Rich Prosper Limited; 1st Defendant: Yeung Ting Cheung; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Kit Lai; 3rd Defendant: Pau Wai Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Case Number
DCMP1476/2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Relating to Charging Order and Writs of Possession / Application to Set Aside Ex‑parte Order and Writ of Possession; Hearing and Decision 28–29 April 2015
Outcome
Ex‑parte order dated 13 October 2014 and Writ of Possession issued 13 November 2014 set aside.
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Writ of Possession, Ex‑parte Application, Material Non‑disclosure, Set Aside, Indemnity Costs, Specific Performance (context)
Source Language
EN
Civil Enforcement Property Law Procedure Equity Costs Charging Order Writ of Possession Ex‑parte Application +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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rich Prosper Limited

Plaintiff

Yeung Ting Cheung

1st Defendant

Cheung Kit Lai

2nd Defendant

Pau Wai Lam

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Relating to Charging Order and Writs of Possession / Application to Set Aside Ex‑parte Order and Writ of Possession; Hearing and Decision 28–29 April 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff made material non‑disclosure in its ex‑parte application for leave to issue a writ of possession
  2. 2 Whether the ex‑parte order dated 13 October 2014 and the Writ of Possession dated 13 November 2014 should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the court should re‑grant the writ inter partes after disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff materially failed to disclose facts that were directly relevant to the ex‑parte application (findings of secret rental income and the 2nd/3rd defendants' equitable/chargee interests); that non‑disclosure entitled the court to set aside the ex‑parte order and consequent writ, refuse to re‑grant the order inter partes, and award indemnity costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Court Disposition

Ex‑parte order dated 13 October 2014 and Writ of Possession issued 13 November 2014 set aside.

Orders

  • Ex‑parte order dated 13 October 2014 set aside.
  • Writ of Possession issued on 13 November 2014 set aside.