Case Document

100%

HCMP 1773/2024

[2025] HKCFI 2528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1773 OF 2024

____________

	IN THE MATTER OF the properties known as ALL THAT the estate right title benefit and interest of an in FIRST ALL THOSE 11 equal undivided 30,000^th parts or shares of an in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO. 8334 (“the Land”) AND SECONDLY ALL THOSE 11 equal undivided 10,116^th parts or shares of an in a multi-storeyed building designated and known as “Blocks Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of Baguio Villa” consisting of car ports with 205 car parks on the Ground Floor, 205 car parks on the First Lower Ground Floor, 209 car parks on the Second Lower Ground Floor of the main block and four domestic flats on each of the First to Twenty-fifth Floors of each of the six Bocks Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 and a semi-detached block linking thereto with swimming pool, tennis courts and other amenities and recreation area on the Upper Ground Floor and Ground Floor and carports on the First Lower Ground Floor, the Second Lower Ground Floor and the Third Lower Ground Floor erected on a portion of the Land designated and known as “Blocks Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of Baguio Villa (碧瑤灣)” (“the Building”) TOGETHER with the full right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy FIRST ALL THAT FLAT “C” on the EIGHTEENTH FLOOR of BLOCK 21 of the Building AND SECONDLY ALL THAT CAR PARK SPACE NO. 103 on the GROUND FLOOR of the main block of the Building
	And
	IN THE MATTER OF the Legal Charge/ Mortgage dated 23 June 2022 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No.22062400500241
	And
	IN THE MATTER of Orders 83A and 88 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A
	And
	IN the MATTER of Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Partition Ordinance, Cap. 352
	And
	IN the MATTER of Section 25A of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4

____________

BETWEEN

	CC CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED (御富信貸(國際)有限公司)	Plaintiff
	and
	LOK KA YIN (樂嘉衍) CHEUNG LEE LUI (張莉蕾)	1^st Defendant 2^nd Defendant

____________

Before:

Mr. Recorder William Wong, SC in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	2 May 2025
Date of Decision:	27 June 2025

______________

DECISION

______________

INTRODUCTION

1.In the hearing on 17 December 2024, the Plaintiff, as money lender, obtained a judgment against the 1^st Defendant. The Plaintiff also obtained an unless order to apply for an order for sale should the 1^st Defendant fail to repay the judgment sum on or before 16 March 2025.

2.The 1^st Defendant, Mr. Lok, submitted before this Court that he had borrowed money for the laudable cause of scientific research for the general good for Hong Kong and our country, particularly, in the area of semi-conductors. Mr. Lok told this Court that given time, he would be able to raise funds to repay the judgment sum.

3.Mr. Lok also submitted that the 2^nd Defendant, his wife, has got nothing to do with his investments in scientific pursuits. I explained to Mr. Lok that it is very noble for him to devote himself for the scientific development of Hong Kong but everyone must do things within one’s capacities. He also has a responsibility vis-à-vis his wife, at least not to affect the roof over her head.

4.On the special facts of the case, I allowed a 3 months period for Mr. Lok to raise finance to pay off the judgment sum on an unless order basis. I told Mr. Lok that if in three months’ time, the judgment sum was not repaid, then there is nothing to stop the judgment creditor, namely, the Plaintiff, from obtaining an order for sale of the subject property, namely, Flat C on 18^th Floor of Block 21, Baguio Villa, No. 555 Victoria Road, Hong Kong; and Car Parking Space No. 103 on G/F, Blocks Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24 Baguio Villa, No. 555 Victoria Road, Hong Kong (“the Properties”).

THE APPLICATION

5.As it turns out, no payment was made after the expiry of the 3-month period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff took out the Summons dated 24 April 2025 to seek an order for sale.

6.The 2^nd Defendant did not file any acknowledgment of service or any affidavit evidence as at the date of the hearing.

7.The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants each hold an equal half share in the Properties as tenants in common. The 1^st Defendant entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff on 23 June 2022 for a sum of HK$8,300,000 (“the Loan Agreement”). The annual interest rate for the loan is 15%.

8.The loan is secured by a legal charge dated 23 June 2022 (memorial no. 22062400500241 (“the Legal Charge”) against the 1^st Defendant’s half share of interest in the Properties.

9.The Plaintiff defaulted on paying interest according to the terms of the Loan Agreement and there were delays. The Plaintiff thereby terminated the Loan Agreement and demanded full repayment of the loan and outstanding interest.

10.As a legal chargee, the Plaintiff is entitled to apply for an order for sale of the Properties under Order 88 rule 1(b) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A. The Plaintiff can also institute legal proceedings for an order for sale under sections 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Partition Ordinance, Cap. 352.

11.A legal chargee of a partial interest is entitled to apply for an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance (see Konew Capital International Limited v Tsang Shar Wing & Another [2021] HKDC 286 at §30). A legal chargee of a partial interest is considered as a “person interested” within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Partition Ordinance (see Law Chun Wai v Chu Suk Har [2016] 1 HKLRD 224 at §22-23).

12.In Wong Chun Kei Johnny & Others v Poon Vai Ching, Executrix of the Estate of Poon Kam Chuen, Deceased & Others [2007] 1 HKLRD 825, Recorder Fok SC (as he then was) at §18-19 set out the following principles which are applicable when the Court is faced with an application for partition or sale under the Partition Ordinance:-

(1) A co-owner has a basic right to rid himself of the shackles of co-ownership and, if he has no other remedy, ask for an order for partition or sale;

(2) When it is impracticable to make an order for partition, the court should make an order for sale unless it is persuaded (the burden being on the opposing co-owner(s)) that such an order will not be beneficial to all the co-owners or that it will result in very great hardship to one co-owner; and

(3) Whether an order for sale is beneficial to all the co-owners is not determined by the dissent of the opposing co-owners or the assertion by them that it is not beneficial. It has to be determined by the Court objectively.

13.I agree that it is difficult to find a buyer who would be willing to acquire the 1^st Defendant’s half share in the Properties and to co-own the Properties with the 2^nd Defendant.

14.The 2^nd Defendant will also be given a choice to purchase the other half of the Properties or alternatively to arrange new accommodation with the 1^st Defendant upon receiving half of the net proceeds from the sale of the Properties.

15.I stress that the Plaintiff has to sell the Properties with proper care and to obtain a reasonable market price. There are proper safeguards for the proposed sale to be conducted by the Plaintiff’s Solicitors who are officers of the Court, and there will be a reserve price set by the Court by reference to the valuation adduced before this Court.

DISPOSITION

16.Accordingly, I make an order in terms of the Draft Order (as amended by this Court).

17.I make no costs order against the 2^nd Defendant.

18.I would also like to make clear that the 1^st Defendant can actively secure funds to repay the judgment sum before the date set for the sale of the Properties. The 1^st Defendant submitted that he needs another two months. I am of the view that it is not easy to sell the Properties within two months and the 1^st Defendant is at liberty to take advantage of the time available to settle the judgment sum.

19.Finally, I would also provide the liberty to apply to cater for the eventuality that the 1^st Defendant can repay the judgment sum before the Properties are put into the market. In such case, he can apply to this Court for variation of this Court’s orders.