6 Dec 2024
Because the defendants failed to file objections or participate in the costs process, the Court exercised its summary assessment power under Orders 28 and 88 RHC (Cap.4A) and fixed the plaintiff's costs at HKD 200,000 inclusive of counsel's fee.
28 Oct 2024
The Transfer was an absolute assignment in writing of Pun's rights under the Mortgage that satisfied s9 LAO Cap 23 and became effective on service of notice (17 October 2019); the Transfer was authentic and properly witnessed; the Mortgage must be construed to require payment of principal and interest and the HK$15,000 monthly payment is interest (4.5% p.a.); the 1840 default judgment cannot be relied on as a set-off because it was procured by material non-disclosure and constituted an abuse of process in the circumstances, save for proven partial repayments of HK$120,000; accordingly judgmen…
17 Jan 2023
On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence: the defendant executed the loan documents on 14 August 2015, received $943,000, and Mark Wong/Asia Hong Zhi were not agents of the plaintiff; accordingly the loan agreement is binding and the defendant is ordered to repay principal of HK$943,000 with contractual interest at 30% per annum from 14 August 2015 until full payment, and to pay the plaintiff's costs.
28 Nov 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the judge found the defendants’ forgery defence inherently implausible and unsupported by cogent and compelling evidence, delayed in being raised, lacking particulars or police report, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (including demands and a July 2018 company letter) and thus did not raise a triable issue to defeat summary judgment; master’s summary judgment was therefore upheld.
20 Apr 2022
The court sanctioned the proposed distribution because statutory and equitable principles permit proprietary subrogation and contribution: SHX must indemnify CAL and CHPL for payment of SHX's loan, and CHPL, having paid more than CAL, is entitled to be subrogated to the creditor's security against CAL's properties to equalise their respective burdens; accordingly the Trust Account balance is distributable SHX 0%, CAL 46%, CHPL 54%.
18 Jan 2022
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the trial judge permissibly found on the evidence (including the defendant's admission on 8 January 2018 and the accepted testimony of the plaintiff) that an oral agreement/common intention existed that the defendant would hold his half share on trust for the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had funded the purchase; those findings were open to the judge and properly upheld on appeal.
15 Jan 2021
The court preferred the evidence of the Mother, AYP and APC on the primary factual disputes, found that the Company owed the amounts pleaded to the Mother and AYP and that AWC personally undertook or guaranteed repayment by his cheques, and found that the Company’s claim against APC was defeated by the set-off/cheque discounting arrangement; accordingly judgment was entered for the Mother and AYP and the Company's claim was dismissed.
11 Jan 2019
The court found the Mother provided the overwhelming bulk of the purchase price and redeemed the mortgages with her funds; the evidence established a resulting trust (and alternative constructive trust) in the Mother's favour, the presumption of advancement did not apply or was rebutted, and therefore the Son’s registered half did not form part of the bankrupt estate; trustees' summons dismissed.
15 Jan 2018
The debtor failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; the statutory demand was not complied with and an unsatisfied uncontested judgment exists; accordingly a bankruptcy order should be made and costs awarded to the petitioning creditor.
27 Aug 2015
On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff advanced HK$8,500,000 to the defendant personally; the 2nd Confirmation of 28 November 2009 was genuine and the defendant acknowledged an outstanding principal of HK$6,500,000; the defendant's alternative case that the monies were owed by Citisonic/VPG failed because the evidence showed the arrangements were personal between plaintiff and defendant and the disputed emails and documents did not rebut the plaintiff's case; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$6,500,000 plus contractual interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim di…