Re Maxgrade Ltd of Block D, 2nd Floor, No. 48 Kennedy Road, Monticello, Hong Kong (20th of 2531 Parts or Shares of and in Inland Lot No. 7978)

HCMP002297/2000

HCMP 2295/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2295 OF 2000

____________

____________

HCMP 2297/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2297 OF 2000

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Yuen J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 9 June 2000

Date of Ruling: 9 June 2000

_______________

R U L I N G

_______________

1. I have before me two ex parte originating summonses both seeking orders that a Memorandum of Charge registered in the Land Registry against the respective Applicant's interest in the properties be discharged.

2. The initial procedural difficulty is that in neither case has the chargee been made a party to the application, nor has it been served or even notified of the application.

3. In my view, it would not be in the interests of the efficient administration of justice for any orders to be made ex parte in the absence of the chargees being served or even notified of the applications. Rightly or wrongly (and this is a matter which I should not deal with today), the chargees have in correspondence with the Applicants' solicitors claimed that they were entitled to certain charges or fees or costs before the Memorandum of Charge should be released from registration in the registry. Since there is a dispute between the chargor and the chargee it is not right in my view for the court to make any orders in the absence of one party.

4. Mr Mark for the Applicant has suggested that what the court can do is to make the order ex parte and then, upon service of that order on the chargee, if the chargee feels aggrieved, he can come back to the court to set it aside. In my view, that is not a proper or an efficient approach to take. There is no urgency in the matter that I can see.

5. Accordingly, I take the view that this matter should be adjourned for service of each application on the respective chargees. I would also make an order under MP2295 of 2000 for amendment of the originating summons in terms sought by Mr Mark. The present applications would therefore be adjourned pending service of the applications on the respective chargees.

Representation:

Mr Peter Mark, of Peter Mark & Co., for the Applicant in both proceedings.