Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of equitable charge

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2024

NEW CHINA MANAGEMENT LTD v. SZE SHUN CHAP

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1728
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4480/2023

The court found that the arrears and associated sums were due and secured by a registered memorandum of charge which is enforceable as an equitable charge; the District Court had jurisdiction given the rateable value threshold; therefore an order for sale under O 88 r 5A RDC was appropriate if the defendant did not pay the specified sum within 28 days; plaintiff was entitled to costs on a solicitor and own client basis under the DMC.
8 Jan 2014

RE YANG ZHENGHONG

Citation

RE YANG ZHENGHONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3115/2013

The application could not proceed ex parte and must be adjourned because the property appears to have vested as bona vacantia and the Secretary for Justice should be joined as representative of the Government whose proprietary interest may be divested, and because the supporting affidavit failed to comply with Order 88 rule 5A.
14 Aug 2001

Standard Chartered Bank v. Kwok Fat

Citation

Standard Chartered Bank v. Kwok Fat
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3555/2000

Section 37(1) of the District Court Ordinance does not confer jurisdiction to enforce a charging order made by the Court of First Instance; section 52AB's deeming of a charging order as an equitable charge affects the nature and priority of the charge and the court's discretion in dealing with the property but does not transfer enforcement jurisdiction away from the court that made the charging order; accordingly the matter was properly transferred to and should be enforced by the Court of First Instance.
12 Jun 1976

KEN KEE SECURITIES CO v. WONG YING CHEONG

Citation

KEN KEE SECURITIES CO v. WONG YING CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/1973

Order 31 rules 1 and 2 do not authorize the sale of land subject to a charging order in the present action because the original cause was for recovery of money and there was no action relating to land; a charging order on land is to be enforced as an equitable charge by originating summons under the appropriate rule (Order 88 r.1), and therefore the inter-parte summons brought under Order 31 was an inappropriate procedure and must be dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEW CHINA MANAGEMENT LTD v. SZE SHUN CHAP

RE YANG ZHENGHONG

Standard Chartered Bank v. Kwok Fat

KEN KEE SECURITIES CO v. WONG YING CHEONG