31 Mar 2026
The Defendants failed to address the only relevant questions (why they should not be liable for their failed stay application and the quantum of costs) and instead raised irrelevant alleged wrongs; accordingly the Summons is dismissed and costs follow the event, with the Plaintiff's costs of the Summons assessed on an indemnity basis at HK$28,346.
15 Sept 2023
The court entered judgment against the 1st and 3rd defendants for the outstanding loan because the plaintiff complied with statutory and procedural requirements and the 3rd defendant assumed primary liability; the court refused an order for possession because the plaintiff held only a half share and possession of the whole would cause undue hardship; the court granted an order for sale of the whole property under the Partition Ordinance because partition was impracticable and the plaintiff, as a person interested, is entitled to seek sale; costs were awarded on an indemnity basis subject to d…
11 Jul 2023
The plaintiff, as assignee of the loans and registered mortgages, was entitled to monetary judgment against the 1st defendant for the outstanding indebtedness; the 1st defendant's mortgage of his share severed the joint tenancy making the plaintiff a person interested in the Property; partition was impracticable and not beneficial, and absent any evidence of hardship from the defendants the Court should order possession and sale of the Property under the Partition Ordinance and the Rules of the High Court.
22 Dec 2022
Because the borrower defaulted under the mortgage and the plaintiff complied with Order 83A and Order 88, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the outstanding principal and interest, possession and an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance since the flat is indivisible; PrimeCredit's earlier registered charging order takes priority over the trustee by operation of BO s45 and related case law, and the court will fix a reserved price of HK$2,160,000 and cap sale-related costs.
11 Aug 2022
Because the 1st defendant defaulted and the plaintiff, a licensed moneylender, complied with Orders 83A and 88 and relied on enforceable mortgage and second mortgage provisions, and because the property is not practicably divisible and the co-owner did not oppose, the court granted judgment for the outstanding principal and interest, ordered possession and sale under the Partition Ordinance with a reserved price of HK$5,200,000 and assessed costs of HK$80,000 against the 1st defendant.
8 Mar 2021
Plaintiff complied with statutory and procedural requirements, an event of default occurred, plaintiff as a second mortgagee is a person interested under the Partition Ordinance and entitled to possession and sale; partition was impracticable and discretionary factors favoured sale; accordingly money judgment, possession, order for sale and contractual indemnity costs were granted.
15 Nov 2016
Defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success on the pleaded facts and affidavits; accordingly the court set aside the default judgment and, as conceded by the plaintiff, discharged the charging orders and set aside the possession order and writ. Leave was granted to defendants to file a defence and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in any event.
18 Apr 2008
The court accepted the evidence of Hilder's witnesses over D1, found no credible proof of duress, held that the Order for Possession stands (and adverse possession is not live while the Order remains unchallenged), granted the plaintiff's injunction, awarded nominal damages for trespass and breach of the licence, and ordered costs to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.
29 Jun 2007
The appeal was dismissed and no stay granted because the bank's willingness to sell to the purchaser at the offered HK$4.8 million (an amount sufficient to cover the judgment debt and interest) meant the respondent's interests were protected and there was no need to stay execution; the appellant had not produced a binding signed sale agreement.
6 Feb 2002
The defendants' promissory estoppel defence failed because the alleged promise was too vague and lacked necessary certainty and because the defendants failed to comply with the condition that sale proceeds be paid into Sino's account; there was no convincing evidence of a reasonable prospect of full repayment within a reasonable time, so the Master's orders for recovery and possession were correctly made and the appeals are dismissed.