URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

The MOC only secured the amount specified in the notice and interest thereon (no legal costs were specified or due at the time the notice was created); the principal secured had been satisfied by a subsequent garnishee order, and a cheque is not payment until honoured — accordingly the Master’s order refusing release was set aside and the Property ordered released from the MOC.

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
3 November 2009
Case Number
DCMP2185/2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (district Court) Under Deed of Mutual Covenant and Building Management Ordinance / Appeal From Master’s Decision to District Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master’s order of 8 June 2009 set aside; Property released from security constituted by the Memorandum of Charge; costs ordered to applicant nisi
Legal Topics
Memorandum of Charge, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Charging Order, Order for Sale, Possession, Costs
Source Language
EN
Building Management Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Land Registration Memorandum of Charge Deed of Mutual Covenant Charging Order +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 (district Court) Under Deed of Mutual Covenant and Building Management Ordinance / Appeal From Master’s Decision to District Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memorandum of Charge (MOC) secured costs of subsequent court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Property should be released from the security constituted by the MOC
  3. 3 Whether the defendant’s tender of cheques and resumption of possession constituted payment and discharge of the secured obligation

Ratio Decidendi

The MOC only secured the amount specified in the notice and interest thereon (no legal costs were specified or due at the time the notice was created); the principal secured had been satisfied by a subsequent garnishee order, and a cheque is not payment until honoured — accordingly the Master’s order refusing release was set aside and the Property ordered released from the MOC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master’s order of 8 June 2009 set aside; Property released from security constituted by the Memorandum of Charge; costs ordered to applicant nisi

Orders

  • Set aside the Master’s order dated 8 June 2009
  • Order that the Property be released from the security constituted by the Memorandum of Charge dated 11 September 2001