9 Apr 2025
吳春綠 對 李富平及另二人
- Citation
- [2025] HKDC 567
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ1261/2023
The third defendant's summons for summary judgment and for vacatur of the plaintiff's lis pendens was dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim did not dispute the bank's mortgage priority, the third defendant's counterclaim/pleading was not self-sufficient or adequately pleaded for summary relief, and the bank failed to adduce credible evidence that the registered writ caused the requisite prejudice or prevented sale such as would justify vacatur under LRO s.19; registration of the writ was a legitimate protective step by the plaintiff pending trial.