URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

The court refused leave because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: clause 6(e) and the MOC cannot legitimately be construed to secure unspecified future costs beyond the scope of the notice required by the DMC; the Registrar's acceptance of payment and return of keys indicated the debt was treated as settled as to the specified sum; the garnishee satisfied principal and interest; and Plaintiffs had the remedy of serving further notices and registering additional memoranda for subsequently accruing amounts, so the proposed appeal was unarguable.

Citation
URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Urban Property Management Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: The Incorporated Owners of King Tin Court; Defendant: Tsang Wing Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2009
Case Number
DCMP2185/2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Building Management and District Court Rules (application for Release of Property From Memorandum of Charge and Subsequent Leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused; Final Decision on Summons to Refuse Leave and Dismiss Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Memorandum of Charge, Leave to Appeal (s63 a District Court Ordinance), Possession and Sale, Garnishee Order, Priority of Charges, Costs of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Property Law Building Management Civil Procedure Equity (charges) Deed of Mutual Covenant Memorandum of Charge Leave to Appeal (s63 a District Court Ordinance) Possession and Sale +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Urban Property Management Limited

1st Plaintiff

The Incorporated Owners of King Tin Court

2nd Plaintiff

Tsang Wing Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Building Management and District Court Rules (application for Release of Property From Memorandum of Charge and Subsequent Leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal Refused; Final Decision on Summons to Refuse Leave and Dismiss Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memorandum of Charge (MOC) secured the costs of these proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the possession order was validly executed and possession resumed
  3. 3 Whether the garnishee order discharged the amount secured by the MOC

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: clause 6(e) and the MOC cannot legitimately be construed to secure unspecified future costs beyond the scope of the notice required by the DMC; the Registrar's acceptance of payment and return of keys indicated the debt was treated as settled as to the specified sum; the garnishee satisfied principal and interest; and Plaintiffs had the remedy of serving further notices and registering additional memoranda for subsequently accruing amounts, so the proposed appeal was unarguable.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed