27 Sept 2019
Court accepted appellants' evidence of dire financial circumstances and, giving weight to their subjective stance and an objective common‑sense assessment, found that payment of the ASD would impose undue hardship and exercised its discretion under s14(1B) to allow the appeal to be brought without payment or security.
16 Mar 2018
Extension under s14(5B) refused because although the court adopts the 'unable to' meaning of 'prevented', applicant had been able to instruct solicitors and had not shown she was unable to lodge appeals within the statutory month; relief under s14(1B) refused because applicant failed to prove financial hardship and did not meet s14(1A) requirements for postponement; procedural misuse of expedited originating summons was noted but no separate sanction given as claim dismissed on merits.
30 Jan 2018
Partition was impracticable; respondent failed to prove an enforceable estoppel or that sale would cause very great hardship; objective assessment favoured sale to give applicant relief and prevent unfair subsidisation of respondent, therefore court ordered sale under Partition Ordinance ss.2(b) and 6 with specified terms.
25 May 2016
The court ordered specific performance because the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that he was ready, willing and able to perform and the defendant failed to prove relative hardship; damages for loss of user were assessed at average rental less mortgage interest ($6,720 per month) from contractual completion until actual completion, with interest and costs as ordered.
8 Oct 2015
The court found insufficient evidence to displace the presumption that Chow and Leung were equal beneficial owners; Leung failed to prove Chow was a mere nominee or that beneficial ownership belonged solely to her. The trustees lawfully held Chow's half interest and, applying the Partition Ordinance and relevant authorities, the court was not satisfied there was such great hardship to Chow or Leung as to refuse a sale. Therefore an order for sale was granted and the trustees were directed to realise the property in accordance with their duties.
13 Apr 2015
The court refused the plaintiff's application for sale under s6 because (1) an order for sale would cause very great hardship to the 1st defendant given his advanced age, lifelong business entrenched in the shop, residence above the premises and strong practical and emotional attachments and (2) the plaintiff had an alternative remedy (market for sale of undivided interests existed and the plaintiff had not demonstrated inability to sell its share). Accordingly, on the special facts the court dismissed the originating summons and awarded costs to the defendants.
27 Aug 2008
Partition of a self-contained flat was impracticable and co-ownership had irretrievably broken down; the Defendant's asserted hardship was insufficient given investment purpose, income and market value; accordingly an order for sale under s6 was justified and should be made, with costs to the Plaintiff.
4 Jul 2008
The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving great hardship; given the market value, outstanding mortgage, likely net proceeds and defendant's income and housing alternatives, refusal of sale would unjustly oblige the plaintiff to continue paying mortgage and outgoings while deriving no benefit, therefore an order for sale was appropriate and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
19 Dec 2007
Partition of the flat was impracticable; plaintiffs were entitled to an order for sale under s.6 absent convincing proof of very great hardship; the defendant failed to prove such hardship and had been occupying rent-free despite owning only a one-quarter share; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order sale.
30 Sept 2005
The court was satisfied the applicant's diagnosed grave illness (hepatocellular carcinoma with metastasis and palliative radiotherapy) amounted to a reasonable cause preventing timely appeal and therefore exercised its residual discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time; however the applicant failed to establish that immediate payment of the assessed stamp duty would impose hardship, so postponement of payment was refused and a costs order nisi was made against the applicant.