XCRHX STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. LING SZE CHIU AND ANOTHER

XCRHX STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. LING SZE CHIU AND ANOTHER

The court refused to set aside the Master's order. Clause 15(h) did not oust the court's jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to require a detailed breakdown of the amounts due and to afford the defendants an opportunity to object; accordingly the Master's directions ordering a supplemental affidavit with a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
XCRHX STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. LING SZE CHIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Standard Chartered Bank; 1st Defendant: Ling Sze Chiu; 2nd Defendant: Lau Wan Yee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 December 2000
Case Number
HCMP4725/2000
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Enforcement Under Order 88 Rules of the High Court / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Directions Regarding Breakdown of Indebtedness and Entitlement to Money Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of Master Jones upheld
Legal Topics
Order 88, Conclusive Evidence Clause, Statement of Account, Breakdown of Indebtedness, Court Discretion to Order Accounts
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Equity Mortgages Debt Recovery Order 88 Conclusive Evidence Clause Statement of Account Breakdown of Indebtedness +1 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Chartered Bank

Plaintiff

Ling Sze Chiu

1st Defendant

Lau Wan Yee

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Mortgage Enforcement Under Order 88 Rules of the High Court / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Directions Regarding Breakdown of Indebtedness and Entitlement to Money Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 15(h) (conclusive evidence clause) in the legal charge ousts the court's jurisdiction to require a detailed breakdown of indebtedness
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's affirmation can qualify as a 'statement of account' under clause 15(h)
  3. 3 Whether the Master's order requiring a supplemental affidavit and time for defendants to object should be set aside and judgment entered without affording defendants an opportunity to contest

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to set aside the Master's order. Clause 15(h) did not oust the court's jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to require a detailed breakdown of the amounts due and to afford the defendants an opportunity to object; accordingly the Master's directions ordering a supplemental affidavit with a breakdown and allowing defendants to file an affirmation were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of Master Jones upheld

Orders

  • Plaintiff to file a supplemental affidavit annexing a detailed breakdown of its claim for the money judgment within 14 days of the order
  • Defendants permitted to file an affirmation in case of any objection within 28 days after service of the plaintiff's supplemental affidavit