Re Cheung Ting (or Teng) Fan (or Fun) Tso
Read the full judgment text of DCMP 2731/2010 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 12 September 2011.
1. The applicant was the Government Lease grantee of the Lots.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
DCMP 2731/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2731 OF 2010 ____________
______________ Coram: Deputy District Judge H. Au-Yeung in Chambers (open to public) Date of Hearing: 12 September 2011 Date of Decision: 12 September 2011 REASONS FOR DECISION BACKGROUND 1.The applicant was the Government Lease grantee of the Lots. 2.By the Mortgage dated 8th March 1911, the applicant mortgaged the Lots to a Lam Kwai Chung for securing payment of HK$240 on 8th March 1921 without interest. 3.Under a Transfer of Chinese Customary Mortgage dated 7th March 1923 and registered in the Land Registry with Memorial No.YL55092, the said Lam Kwai Chung transferred his interest under the Mortgage to a Cheung Lun Chung. 4.Under a Transfer of Mortgage dated 11th April 1923 and registered in the Land Registry with Memorial No.YL55530 (“the 2nd Transfer”), the said Cheung Lun Chung further transferred his interest under the Mortgage to a Lam Yung Chi (“Lam”). 5.A portion of Lot 1349 was subsequently resumed by the Government on 25th April 2008. The un-resumed portion of Lot 1349 was then known as and registered in the Land Registry as The Remaining Portion of Lot No.1349 in Demarcation District No.96. SECTION 12A OF THE CPO 6.In the present application, the applicant seeks leave to make a payment into court pursuant to section 12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap.219, Laws of Hong Kong). 7.For the sake of easy reference, section 12A is set out below:
8.Section 12A was introduced into Hong Kong under section 7 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Ordinance No.32 of 2000 which came into operation on 9th June 2000. After a decade, it is now clear that there are three stages in this application:
THE PRESENT CASE 9.The mortgage in question is a Chinese customary mortgage. If there is evidence showing that the possession of the Lots had been given back to the mortgagor or his successors, a reasonable inference is that the mortgage had been discharged. This inference could be reinforced by the lack of action on the part of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage. Therefore, arguably, the Lots are no longer subject to the mortgage and Section 12A does not come into play (Re Cheung Chi Wang & Another (supra) at paragraph 16). 10.Having said that, I am prepared to proceed as if the mortgage is still subsisting. Given the lapse of time, there is no evidence as to what exactly had happened when the Mortgage was entered into, and it is unknown as to whether the operation of the Mortgage was any different from other Chinese customary mortgages. 11.If the mortgage has already been discharged, the grant of any order herein would not affect the mortgagee’s interest anyway. The only party who will be prejudiced is the applicant as he will be required to make a payment into court. However, Mr. Kwok for the applicant indicated that the applicant still wants to obtain an order from the court even though it may well be that such an order is not needed in the circumstances of the case. 12.On the other hand, the grant of this order would be helpful in any future transactions in respect of the Lots in that any possible argument relating to the Mortgage may be avoided. 13.The applicant has placed before me evidence showing that the encumbrancer (Lam) cannot be found despite reasonable steps have been taken to locate him. Furthermore, according to the description of Lam in the 2nd Transfer (“Lam Yung Chi of Chik Mi”), it may well be that Lam was residing in Shenzhen in 1923 (it is evident that “Chik Mi” is a place in Shenzhen). Hence, he, if still alive, is probably out of the jurisdiction. 14.I am therefore satisfied that I have power under section 12A to allow a payment be made into court. 15.The next question is the amount of payment. 16.The principal of the Mortgage which was created on 8th March 1911 was HK$240. Adopting a notional interest rate of 20% per annum (as adopted in cases such as Man Chi Kan v Man Tsak Lun [2003] 2 HKLRD 489 and Fu Kin Chow & Others v Ip Kat Fan (DCMP 1314/2007, unreported, 1st April 2008)), the total amount of principal plus interest should be HK$5,040. The applicant proposes that a round-up figure of HK$5,200 be paid into court. I am satisfied that this round-up figure is sufficient for the present purpose. 17.Under section 12A(2), this court may only declare the land to be free from encumbrance after payment into court has been made. Therefore, despite the attraction of efficiency, it is not feasible for the court to compress the first two stages into one (see Fu Sum & Others v Fu San Fat [2008] 5 HKLRD 271 at paragraphs 10 to 17). In other words, in this hearing, the court should not make any declaration which would come into effect upon the payment into court. 18.Bearing in mind the fact that it is unlikely that the encumbrancer may appear in these proceedings, I hold the view that the applicant is sensible in proposing that the approach adopted by Deputy High Court Judge L Chan in Re Light Time Investments Limited (HCMP 326/2010, unreported, 25th March 2010) be followed. I agree that this approach would not create any risk of injustice to Lam or his descendents but on the other hand provide a practical solution by which this matter may be dealt with in a more cost-effective way. 19.I therefore order that:
Mr Kwok Wan Chung of Messrs. Wong, Kwan & Co. for the Applicant. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case