URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

Because the court had previously refused to discharge the charging order, the Defendant's application to dismiss the enforcement action lacked merit; the enforcement must proceed by separate proceedings under Order 88 r.5A, there was no abuse of process as the earlier related action had no outstanding matters, and consequently the Defendant's summonses were dismissed and the enforcement action adjourned for a Master to give directions with no order as to costs (costs nisi to become absolute after 14 days).

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
20 January 2010
Case Number
DCMP3128/2009
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Charging Order / Order for Sale / Summons Hearing; Action Adjourned for Call Over Before a Master Following Dismissal of Defendant's Summonses
Outcome
Defendant's summonses dismissed; enforcement action adjourned to Master for call-over/directions; no order as to costs (costs nisi to become absolute after 14 days).
Legal Topics
Charging Order, Order for Sale, Costs, Abuse of Process, Procedure for Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Building Management Charging Order Order for Sale Costs Abuse of Process Procedure for Enforcement

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 2 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

Enforcement of Charging Order / Order for Sale / Summons Hearing; Action Adjourned for Call Over Before a Master Following Dismissal of Defendant's Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging order could be set aside or defeated in this action
  2. 2 Whether the present enforcement action is an abuse of process because related proceedings existed
  3. 3 Whether the two actions should be heard together

Ratio Decidendi

Because the court had previously refused to discharge the charging order, the Defendant's application to dismiss the enforcement action lacked merit; the enforcement must proceed by separate proceedings under Order 88 r.5A, there was no abuse of process as the earlier related action had no outstanding matters, and consequently the Defendant's summonses were dismissed and the enforcement action adjourned for a Master to give directions with no order as to costs (costs nisi to become absolute after 14 days).

Court Disposition

Defendant's summonses dismissed; enforcement action adjourned to Master for call-over/directions; no order as to costs (costs nisi to become absolute after 14 days).

Orders

  • Defendant's summonses dismissed
  • Action fixed for call-over hearing before a Master