Success Road Finance Ltd. v. Mak Kon Sang and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 68/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 April 1999.
1. In this action, the defendants take 3 points. First, they dispute the validity of the loan said to be secured by the mortgage here, under which the plaintiff claims payment of moneys due from the defendants and possession of the property the subject of the mortgage. Secondly, they say that they are entitled to an account of what is claimed to be due from them, which has not yet been provided, and upon which there will be likely to be a dispute. Thirdly, they say that no order for possession o
Cited by 4 cases
|
CACV000068/1999 CACV 68/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 1999 (ON APPEAL FROM MP 938 OF 1998)
---------------------- Coram : Hon. Godfrey, Liu & Leong, JJ.A. Date of Hearing : 1 April 1999 Date of Judgment : 1 April 1999 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Godfrey, J.A. (giving the judgment of the court) : 1. In this action, the defendants take 3 points. First, they dispute the validity of the loan said to be secured by the mortgage here, under which the plaintiff claims payment of moneys due from the defendants and possession of the property the subject of the mortgage. Secondly, they say that they are entitled to an account of what is claimed to be due from them, which has not yet been provided, and upon which there will be likely to be a dispute. Thirdly, they say that no order for possession ought to be made, since the subject of the mortgage is a half interest only in the property and the owner of the other half interest is not a party to the action. 2. These disputes are not suitable for resolution upon originating summons. The right course for us to take is to direct, pursuant to Order 28 rule 8, that these proceedings do continue as if commenced by writ. In order to save time, we will give directions (after hearing counsel) as to pleadings and discovery. The relief claimed in the action should include a claim by the plaintiff that the mortgage is a valid and subsisting security for the amount outstanding by way of loan from the plaintiff; that an account be taken of what is due by the defendants to the plaintiff; and for a declaration that as against the defendants the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the mortgaged property (so that the plaintiff may commence proceedings if so advised for an order against the owner of the other half interest for sale of the property under the Partition Ordinance). 3. The appeal will accordingly be allowed to the extent indicated. Directions Statement of Claim - 21 days from today. Defence - 14 days after the service of Statement of Claim. Reply - 7 days after service of Defence. Discovery as provided by the rules of court. Subject as aforesaid liberty to restore for further directions before the master. Costs in cause.
Representation: Mr. Tsang Kam Hung (M/s. Au Yeung, Lo & Chung) for Plaintiff Mr. Paul Wu (M/s. Tang & So) for Defendants Defendant's appeal to Court of Appeal allowed. Please refer to CACV68/1999 dated 1 April 1999 |
Other judgments that cite this case