Wong Chor Cheung v. Wong Hark Ch
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1676/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 February 2021.
1. On 31 December 2020, I handed down a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim to a partial beneficial interest in the Property (as defined in the judgment). [1]
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 1676/2006 [2021] HKCFI 297 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1676 OF 2006 ____________
____________ Before: Mr Recorder Stewart Wong SC Dates of Written Submissions: 31 December 2020, 25 January 2021 and 1 February 2021 Date of Decision: 4 February 2021 __________________ DECISION _________________ 1.On 31 December 2020, I handed down a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim to a partial beneficial interest in the Property (as defined in the judgment).[1] 2.The Writ in this action is registered as a lis pendens against the Property at the Land Registry under the Land Registration Ordinance.[2] 3.By letter dated 31 December 2020, the defendant asks for an order vacating the lis pendens under sections 19 and 20 of the LRO. Since my Judgment has not been sealed, I retain jurisdiction to consider this application, being an application for an order consequential to the Judgment. 4.Section 19 of the LRO provides as follows:
5.Section 20 of the LRO provides as follows:
6.The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal against the Judgment. 7.The plaintiff objects to the application to vacate the lis pendenson the ground that as he has filed an appeal, it would be unfair to him if the lis pendens is vacated, the defendant sells the Property in the meantime, and he then wins the appeal. 8.Having dismissed the plaintiff’s action, I see no reason why the lis pendens should not be vacated. While the plaintiff is claiming a share in the beneficial ownership of the Property, if he succeeds on appeal and the Property having been sold in the meantime, no doubt he will be entitled to be paid a proportional share of the sale proceeds, in which case his claim is satisfied and there is no unfairness. The plaintiff is not claiming that the Property should be kept in the co-ownership of himself and the defendant, and indeed he asked for an order for sale and distribution of the sale proceeds in the Statement of Claim. There is no evidence that a monetary award against the defendant (if the plaintiff wins the appeal) will be nugatory if the Property is sold. 9.I order that the registration of the Writ in this action, and all other documents (if any) of and in relation to this action, as a lis pendens against the Property at the Land Registry be vacated forthwith. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of this application to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
Written submissions by the plaintiff in person Written submissions by Mr Andrew Hart, solicitor advocate, of Hart Giles, for the defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1676/2006