Re Yeung Ki Fai and Others
Read the full judgment text of DCMP 4189/2019 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 15 May 2020.
1. This is an ex parte application by the applicants, who are siblings, under Section 12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap 219 (“Section 12A”) for an order that the property known as all those pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as Section A of Lot No 1579 in DD 117, Yuen Long, New Territories (“the Land”) be free from a mortgage upon the applicants’ payment into court of a sum of $3,600.
Cites 6 cases
|
DCMP 4189/2019 [2020] HKDC 306 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 4189 OF 2019 ________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________ D E C I S I O N ________________________ 1.This is an ex parte application by the applicants, who are siblings, under Section 12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap 219 (“Section 12A”) for an order that the property known as all those pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as Section A of Lot No 1579 in DD 117, Yuen Long, New Territories (“the Land”) be free from a mortgage upon the applicants’ payment into court of a sum of $3,600. 2.The applicants submit to the jurisdiction of this court under Section 12A(4) and the annual rateable value of the Land is less than HK$320,000. This court therefor has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Upon the applicants’ request made during this General Adjournment Period (“GAP”) to have this matter disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, I think it appropriate and so proceed. Section 12A and the legal principles 3.Section 12A provides:-
4.In Re Cheung Chi Wang & Another [2002] 1 HKLRD 409, one of the earliest applications, if not the first, made after Section 12A came into operation on 9 June 2000, DHCJ Lam (as he then was) has given some clear guidelines which have since been consistently followed. They have been helpfully summarized by HHJ MK Liu in Re Fung Chi Hon DCMP 1631 of 2018 [2018] HKDC 1080, which I quote:-
5.Furthermore, an application pursuant to Section 12A may be made on ex parte basis (Re Cheung Chi Wang & Another, ibid §20), and the court cannot adopt a one-stage approach, that is to direct payment into court under Section 12(1) and at the same time declare that upon payment being made the land shall be free from the encumbrance (Fu Sum v Fu San Fat [2008] 5 HKLRD 271 at §§11-17, Re Light Time Investment Ltd HCMP 326, 328, 330-347/2010). The facts and discussion 6.In support of this application, the applicants proffered an affirmation by Yeung Chun Fai, one of the applicants, filed on 30 December 2019 and another affirmation from their father Yeung Wing Kwong (“the Father”) dated 17 April 2020, which deposed to the following matters, among others. 7.The land search records show that the applicants are the current registered co-owners of the Land, having been assigned the same by a Deed of Gift dated 28 February 2012 executed by the Father who acquired the Lot, as to half share, by an Assignment by way of gift dated 9 December 1986 and as to the other half share, by another Assignment by way of sale dated 9 February 1987, both assignments being executed by his cousin Yang Yung Yen, who in turn inherited the Land from his father Yeung Chuk Nam. 8.The applicants are therefore persons for the time being entitled to redeem the below mentioned mortgage. 9.In the land search record of the Land was registered a Mortgage by Memorial No YL98807 (“the Memorial”) which recorded that a mortgage was created on 10 March 1937 by a former owner Li Kam Fat as the trustee of Li Leung Shi in favour of Lam Tim Wan (“the Mortgagee”) to secure payment of HK$200 without any provision as to interest (“the Mortgage”). 10.There was no record of the redemption of the Mortgage in the land search record, the Memorial Index record or the title deeds of the Land. In the affirmation of the Father, who is now 83 years old, he deposed that he had no knowledge that there was such a record of redemption. 11.In the circumstance, there lurks a doubt as to whether the Mortgage still exists. 12.By reason of the matters set out below, I am satisfied that the Mortgagee or his successor cannot be found. 13.The full address of the Mortgagee was not stated in the Memorial, but only his locality or village “Shan Pui” was recorded. 14.In the affirmation of Yeung Chun Fai, he deposed to the following efforts all made in January 2018 to attempt to identify and locate the Mortgagee or his successor:-
15.I think reasonable steps have been taken by the applicants to try to locate the Mortgagee or his successors, whom nevertheless cannot be found. Conclusion and disposal 16.I am satisfied that the requirements of Section 12A have been met and the application ought to be acceded to. 17.As to the amount of money to be paid into court, the applicants propose HK$3,600 being the round-up total of the principal of HK$200 plus simple interest for 83 years at the notional rate of 20% per annum, which is the rate usually adopted in Section 12A applications (see for instance Man Chi Kan v Man Tsak Lun [2003] 2 HKLRD 489 and Re Fung Chi Hon above). I think the sum proposed is an appropriate amount. 18.The applicants seek an order along the line of an approach and form now consistently adopted by judges in applications under this section (for instance, Re Light Time Investments Limited HCMP 326, 328, 330-347/2010, DHCJ L Chan (as he then was); Wu Cho Yeung and others v 楊木勝 HCMP 1461/2011, Suffiad J; and very recently in Re Cheung Fuk Cheong and Others HCMP 1294/2019, Au-yeung J). 19.I think it appropriate and order:-
20.As the said affirmation of the Father has not been filed due to the closure of the District Court Registry in GAP, I further direct that the said affirmation be filed within 14 days, and this order shall not be sealed until after the said filing. 21.There be no order as to costs. 22.I thank the applicants’ solicitors for their helpful submissions.
KWC & Associates, for the applicants |
Cases cited in this judgment