Yvonne Credit Service Co., Ltd v. Wong Mei Ling and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1899/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 September 2020.
1. The Plaintiff is a licensed money lender and this is its action against the Defendants for payment of the outstanding principal and interest due under a Loan dated 1 April 2016. The Loan was taken out by both the Defendants and it is secured by a Legal Charge against a landed property belonging to the 1 st Defendant. In addition to the payments, the Plaintiff is also seeking to enforce the Charge by way of a possession order against the property.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA 1899/2016 [2020] HKCFI 2393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1899 OF 2016 ________________________
|
|||
| YVONNE CREDIT SERVICE CO., LIMITED (易還財務有限公司) |
Plaintiff | ||
| And | |||
| WONG MEI LING (汪美玲) | 1st Defendant | ||
| LEE WING MAN (李穎敏) | 2nd Defendant |
_______________________
Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 9 September 2020
Date of Judgment: 9 September 2020
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
1.The Plaintiff is a licensed money lender and this is its action against the Defendants for payment of the outstanding principal and interest due under a Loan dated 1 April 2016. The Loan was taken out by both the Defendants and it is secured by a Legal Charge against a landed property belonging to the 1st Defendant. In addition to the payments, the Plaintiff is also seeking to enforce the Charge by way of a possession order against the property.
2.As expected, the loan transaction was reasonably well-documented. Solicitors were involved in the preparation and execution of the Charge.
3.The Defendants have not appeared today to defend this action. In light of their absence, there is no basis to question the Plaintiff’s factual case. I see no obvious legal issue with the Plaintiff’s case. I therefore accept that the Plaintiff has proved its case against the Defendants.
4.Accordingly, I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the terms which I have ventilated with Mr Yuen, who appears for the Plaintiff.
| (Anthony Chan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Mr Ross M Y Yuen, instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co, for the Plaintiff
The 1st and 2nd defendants were not represented and did not appear
Other judgments that cite this case