Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001072/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 July 2008 before Chung J.
Conveyancing and property law – encumbrance – mortgage – application under s.12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219) – Block Government Lease of March 1905 – registered mortgage of $76 in favour of defendant – plaintiffs as successors to the registered owners – encumbrancer cannot be found – three-stage structure of s.12A application – whether court can adopt a 'one-stage' approach granting payment-in order and declaration freeing property from mortgage at the same hearing – held, no – s.12A(1) only confers power to direct or allow payment into court; further powers under s.12A(2), including declaration that land is free from the encumbrance and any conveyance or vesting order, can only be exercised 'upon payment into court of the sum referred to in subsection (1)' – Chinese version equally clear – practicality or efficiency cannot override the express statutory scheme – Harvest Development Ltd v Personal Representative of the Estate of Liu Wa Fuk disapproved – Re Cheung Chi Wang and Man Chi Kan v Man Tsak Lun followed – obiter discussion on District Court jurisdiction under ss. 36, 37 and 3 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) and s.12A(4) CPO – meaning of singular 'party' in s.12A(4) – application adjourned part-heard with direction for payment into court and advertisement of adjourned hearing in a widely circulated Chinese newspaper.
Legal issues: Whether court can grant a one-stage order under s.12A CPO combining payment into court and declaration freeing property from encumbrance · Meaning of 'party' in s.12A(4) CPO and court for s.12A applications
Outcome: Plaintiffs' application adjourned part-heard; directed to make payment into court. The argument that final relief (declaration freeing the property from the mortgage) should be granted at the s.12A(1) hearing was rejected.