Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hardship assessment

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2023

RE TONG CHI KIT

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4942/2009

On the evidence the Respondent discharged the burden of proving a common intention that she alone held the beneficial interest; the Bankrupt therefore had no beneficial interest and the Trustees' sale application failed on that ground; having nonetheless balanced interests the court also concluded that ordering sale would cause very great hardship and would not be just, so the application was dismissed.
8 May 2017

RE CHENG KIN CHING

Citation

RE CHENG KIN CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB47/2009

The court found on the balance of probabilities that despite the Respondent making mortgage payments the parties intended joint beneficial ownership; the bankrupt’s interest had vested in the trustees and the joint tenancy was severed, and after balancing the Respondent's personal circumstances against the creditors' interests the court ordered sale and equal division of net proceeds, as sale would not cause very great hardship outweighing creditors' rights.
17 Aug 2015

RE CHEN JUI HSIANG

Citation

RE CHEN JUI HSIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7501/2009

Madam Lee failed to discharge the burden of proving sole beneficial ownership; on bankruptcy the Bankrupt's interest vested in the trustees and the tenancy was severed; balancing the trustees' duty to creditors against the co-owner's circumstances, the court concluded sale was appropriate and granted an order for sale with protections (public auction not earlier than 60 days) and declared equal tenants in common shares.
15 Jan 1974

WU WING SENG v. CHOI TAK AND OTHERS

Citation

WU WING SENG v. CHOI TAK AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ550/1973

The court held that s.51(1) of Cap.7 should not be read to require a 'separate dwelling' and that the sub‑tenants used their portions as dwellings and therefore enjoy statutory protection; the respondents opposing possession proved greater hardship (except Choi and Wong), and the applicant's challenge to partial possession failed because he had accepted partial recovery and cannot now claim greater hardship; the review summons was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE TONG CHI KIT

RE CHENG KIN CHING

RE CHEN JUI HSIANG

WU WING SENG v. CHOI TAK AND OTHERS