Easy Turn Credit Ltd v. Fung Yuk Bing Iris

DCMP 3632/2025

[2026] HKDC 1759

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3632 OF 2025

-----------------------------

----------------------------------

BETWEEN

-----------------------------

--------------------------

DECISION

--------------------------

1.This is the hearing of the D’s appeal against Master Vivien Lee’s decision on 23 April 2026 (“Master Lee’s Order”).

2.In Master Lee’s Order, it was ordered inter alia, that the D do pay the P the sum of HK$2,873,840.99 secured by the Mortgage dated 14 December 2022 together with interest on the said sum at the rate of 13% per annum from 25 March 2026 until full repayment.

3.The amount of HK$2,873,840.99 comprised the principal amount and the interest as follows:-

Items	Amount
The Loan (Outstanding Principal)	HK$2,490,000.00
Interest on the outstanding amount of the Loan from 15/01/2025 to 04/07/2025 (date of the Originating Summons) HK$2,490,000 x 13% x 171/366	HK$151,236.89
Interest on the outstanding amount of the Loan from 05/07/2025 to 31/12/2025 HK$2,490,000 x 13% x 180/366	HK$159,196.72
Interest on the outstanding amount of the Loan from 01/01/2026 to 24/03/2026 HK$2,490,000 x 13% x 83/366	HK$73,407.38
Amount of interest in arrear at the date of this affirmation	HK$383,840.99
Amount remaining due under the Mortgage:	HK$2,873,840.99

4.The D confirmed in Court that she has no objection for the interest to be calculated from 25 March 2026. However, she objected interest to be calculated for two periods, namely from 4 July 2025 to 16 December 2025 (“the first period”) and from 17 December 2025 to 24 March 2026 (“the second period”).

5.Regarding the first period, the D in her 7th Affirmation prepared for the Appeal hearing dated 14 September 2026 (“the D’s 7^th Affirmation”), she said,

“I would also like to respectfully seek for YOUR HONOUR to deliberate/ judge, based on all other “NORMAL MORTGAGE CIVIL CASES”, if it is “HIGHLY UNUSUAL” for a “1^st Hearing” (on December 16, 2025) to commence after MORE THAN 5 MONTHS when an “Originating Summons” was filed with the Court on July 4, 2025).

All other hearings (from “2^nd Hearing” onward) were all scheduled within one to two months, with some “urgent” hearings able to be scheduled within DAYS (e.g. the “4^th Hearing” on July 9, 2026, and the “6^th Hearing” on September 14, 2026).

As stated in my “6^th Affirmation” filed on August 10, 2026, it is “NOT UNREASONABLE” for the Defendant to suggest that all these “PROLONGED & STALLING” maneuvers by the Plaintiff were to “BUY TIME” to “SEPARATE” and/or “SETTLE/ CONCLUDE” the other “UNKNOWN/ UNDISCLOSED” court cases.

5. I respectfully seek for YOUR HONOUR to “RE-CONSIDER” to accept my previous “dismissed submission” (i.e. my "6th Affirmation"), judging based on the "MERITS" and "EQUAL FAIRNESS" of arguments from both sides (Plaintiff and Defendant) to “ABANDON” and/or “EXEMPT” the Defendant from being charged for the daily interest of HK$886.85 -- for "ALI. UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE, and/or EXTORTIONATE CLAIMS” against the Defendant.

6. (Striking out pleadings and indorsements (O.18, r. 19) -- The Court may strike out or amend any pleading or indorsement if it discloses no reasonable cause of action/defence {a), is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (b), may prejudice or delay a fair trial (c), or is an abuse of process {d); and may stay/dismiss the action or enter judgment.

If a claim is frivolous, scandalous, or discloses no reasonable cause of action, the defendant can apply to strike out the claim.

7. (In Conclusion) TRIABLE ISSUE (2) - UNSETTLED DISPUTE ON ''FAIRLY, JUSTLY & REASONABLY COUNTED DAYS" CHARGEABLE BY THE PLAINTIFF {HK$886.85 PER DAY. OR ~HK$27,000 PER MONTH).”

6.The D also said that,

“1^st “Disputable Period”: From July 4, 2025 (Originating Summons) -- December 16, 2025 (“1^st Hearing”), OVER 5 MONTHS - If the Court might deem it “FAIR & JUST” to deduct some number of months based on other “mortgage civil cases” and the “norms of procedural arrangement”.”

7.In Court, she suggested only 2 months of interest be charged.

8.Regarding the second period, in the D’s 7th Affirmation, she said that,

“3. Previously. my “IMMEDIATE DISPUTE” is on the “2^nd Affirmation of CHONG YUEN KING “filed on March 24, 2026” and its money claim (HK$2,873,840.99) as stated in aforesaid point (1) for the period of December 17, t025 {the day immediately after the “1^st Hearing”) till March 24. 2026 (the submission date of the “ORDERED” supplemental affirmation).

During those ~3.5 months, it mainly served to wait for the Plaintiff {acting by their legal teams) to submit the “ORDERD SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIRMARTION”. Those “questions” and “disputes” have been consistently raised by me since JULY 2025 via emails and Court submission§, and I find it “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE & UNFAIR” to ONLY get “some” of them answered and affirmed on March 24, 2026 (still without any mentions of DCMP 1060/2024 and (P) Easy Money Limited vs. (D) Chiu Ying Ha Candy - i.e. close to 9 months since the “Originating Summons” filed on July 4 2025.

2^nd “Disputable Period”: From December 17, 2025 (the day immediately after “1^st Hearing”) - March 24, 2026 (submission date of “2^nd Affirmation of CYK”) -AGAIN, if the Court might deem it “FAIR & JUST” to deduct the total number of 98 days from the total 434 days (Master Lee's 20.26.04.23 Order: HK$383,840.99 before adding the Principle of HK$2,490,000 = HK$2,873,840.99)”. (Ref: My “6^th Affirmation” filed on August 61 2026).”

9.Mr Ng representing the P helpfully enlightened me as to the background of DCMP 1060/2024 and Chiu Ying Ha Candy in his Skeleton Submission:-

“24. D refers to documents prepared for and on behalf of P, erroneously referring to a third party named “Chiu Ying Ha Candy” and another case number, “DCMP 1060/2024”.

25. Ms Chong Yuen King has already affirmed under oath on behalf of P that P is only enforcing the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage against D and there are no other outstanding legal proceedings taken against D other than the current proceedings, i.e. DCMP 3632/2025. The reference to “DCMP 1060/2024” was merely an inadvertent clerical mistake.

26. On D’s own case, DCMP 1060/2024 involves totally different parties, including “Hospital Authority”. It simply has no correlation to the present proceedings.

27. P’s solicitors also wrote to D on 1 September 2025 clarifying that the name “Chiu Ying Ha Candy” was merely a typographical error.

28. It is merely D’s conjecture that there are other legal proceedings being commenced by P against her.

29. For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding the aforesaid error in the Court documents, D was aware of these proceedings and attended the hearing on 23 April 2026 herself, during which Master Lee’s Order was made.”

10.Mr Ng also submitted that the D’s appeal is out of time. In his Skeleton Submission, he said,

“10. The notice of appeal from a master’s decision must be issued within 14 days after the order was made: RDC O.58, r.1.

11. Master Lee’s Order was made on 23 April 2026. A notice of appeal has to be filed no later than 7 May 2026.

12. D only filed the Notice of Appeal on 17 August 2026, which is out of time for more than 3 months.

13. In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, the Court has to consider all relevant factors, particularly:

(1) The length of the delay;

(2) The reasons for the delay, and that the Court should be slow to accede to an application for extension of time in the absence of an acceptable reason for the delay;

(3) The merits of the proposed appeal; and

(4) The degree of prejudice to the other party.

See: Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, at §58/1/9.”

11.The D submitted in Court that she had mistaken that Master Lee’s Order was not final.

12.In the D’s 7^th Affirmation, the D said,

“On July 9, 2026 (Thursday), a “4^th Hearing” was conducted by Master Louise Chan, and during which the “Summons” was “DISMISSED”. After the hearing, I immediately submitted a “Notice of Appeal to Judge in Chambers (Order 58) --Appeal Against Master's Decision” (Master Louise Chan).

4. An “Appeal Hearing” (“5^th hearing”) was conducted by HHJ Harold Leong Kwok-on on August 10, 2026 (Monday). HHJ Harold Leong deliberated a “DISMISSAL OF APPEAL” on the grounds that

(a) The “3^rd Hearing” conducted by Master Vivian Lee Wai-wan on April 23, 2026 was already a “FINAL JUDGMENT” (or "Disposal of Originating Summons" filed on July 4, 2025, as stated in the “Speaking Note” prepared by the Plaintiff's legal counsel. Mr. Isaac Ng for the “Appeal /5^th Hearing” on August 10, 2026).”

13.In Court, the D said that she has immediately filed this appeal on 17 August 2026 which was only 7 days after 5^th hearing.

14.Mr Ng on the other hand submitted in his Skeleton Submission that,

“16. D could not have argued that she attempted to appeal against Master Lee Order, but erroneously took out the 2026.07.07 Summons returnable before another Master.

17. By the time the 2026.07.07 Summons was taken out, she was already out of time for two months to appeal against Master Lee’s Order.

18. In any event, as Ng J held in Guangxi Stora Enso Forestry Co Ltd v Wu Jun Wei Albert [2021] HKCFI 3637 at §§27-32, in cases involving litigants in person, the same procedural discipline applies as with litigants who are legally represented. To hold otherwise would encourage litigants who can afford legal representation to act in person with the unrealistic expectation that they can flout the Rules of the High Court with impunity. If D is in doubt as to the proper procedural avenue for commencing an appeal, she should have sought legal advice and assistance immediately.

19. It appears that D has taken out multiple applications/appeals after Master Lee’s Order merely to deny P the fruits of the judgment and delay delivering vacant possession of the Property.”

15.I agree that the D’s appeal is grossly out of time. The D’s appeal ought to be dismissed.

16.Despite my finding, I will still deal with the merit of the D’s appeal.

17.Regarding the first period, there is no evidence that the P has been deliberately fixing the Court hearing to a later date to buy time for settlement and/or conclusion of the other Unknown/Undisclosed court cases as alleged by the D.

18.Regarding the second period, the fact that the P had taken out the time Summons to ask for extension of time to file Court documents, the D could have asked for costs as penalty but not waiver of interest. However, as Mr Ng submitted in his Skeleton Submission,

“35. ….. P supplements that when it sought an extension of time to file affirmation in support, Master Vivian Lee originally indicated that P shall pay costs of HK$200 to D on the hearing on 25 February 2026, but D refused to accept.”

19.The D also confirmed in Court that she had refused the offer.

20.In my view, the D could not ask for waiver of some of the months of interest when indeed she has failed to pay any installment since 14 February 2025.

21.In the light of my reasoning, the D’s appeal be dismissed.

22.There are other matters mentioned in the D’s 7^th Affirmation and in Court.

“There was another round of “3 Post-Ups” carried out in 3 consecutive days on January 27, 28 & 29, 2026 (which I took notice of as I have moved back to Discovery Bay since early November last year). I asked the Plaintiff why there were: “THREE 1DENTICAL NOTICES” posted on my door, UNLESS, there _ are “THREE DEFENDANTS/ OCCUPANTS” pertaining to the court case DCMP 3632/2025 filed by the Plaintiff.

5. On contrary, there was only ONE “Post-Up (Notice to Occupants) carried out on April 17, 2026 (Friday): unlike the previous two rounds.

It is rather “EVIDENT” that the Plaintiff had initially planned to roll this 2024-filed Court case into the 2025-filed Court case (i.e. DCMP 3632/2025) when they submitted the "Originating Summons" (July 4, 2025) and “1^st Affirmation of CHONG YUEN KING with Exhibits” (July 7, 2025).

No reasonable mind will accept any “EXCUSE”, such as “inadvertent clerical mistake”, as the entire re-filling with the Registry went through multiple “PROCEDURES 7 DELIBERATE EFFORTS”.”

23.Mr Ng explained in Court that it was upon his advice that the instructing solicitors firm posted the Notice in three consecutive days. As a matter of fact, the Notice was identical and it involved only one defendant.

24.There were also other matters raised by the D in the D’s 7^th Affirmation which are not related to this appeal and I would not deal with them.

Costs

25.I fail to see why costs should not follow the event. The D do pay the P’s costs to be taxed if not agreed with Certificate of Counsel.

Mr Isaac Wong, instructed by T C Wong & Co, for the Plaintiff

The Defendant appeared in person