SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WOO TAK YAN

DCMP 7075/2024

[2026] HKDC 154

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7075 OF 2025

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

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

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

DECISION

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

A.  The Appeal

1.  This is an appeal against a Master’s decision. On 8 October 2025, Master Raymond Chu ordered that the Defendant’s interest in the property in question, namely a flat in Kai Tak Garden, 121 Choi Hung Road Kowloon (the “Property”), do stand charged with the payment of the sum of HK$51,566.84 and post-judgment interest until satisfaction, together with the costs of the application summarily assessed at HK$25,000 (the “Charging Order Absolute”). The ultimate question is whether the Charging Order Absolute obtained by the Plaintiff, i.e. the Secretary for Justice, (“SJ” or “DoJ”) on the Property, of which the Defendant (“Mr. Woo”) is one of the joint tenants, ought to have been made.

B.  Background

2.  Mr. Woo was the claimant, and SJ was the defendant in two actions instituted by Mr. Woo at the Small Claims Tribunal, namely, SCTC 8746/2018 and SCTC 20747/2021.

3.  By an Award/Order dated 12 March 2019 made in SCTC 8746/2018, Mr. Woo was ordered to pay SJ the costs of HK$34,884.50 together with interest thereon at the judgment rate from the date thereof until satisfaction (“the Subject Award”). This sum together with the interest calculated up to 23 December 2024 is HK$51,566.84, which is the subject amount under the Charging Order Absolute.

4.  By three other Awards/Orders made in SCTC 20747/2021 on various dates, Mr. Woo was ordered to pay SJ the costs in the respective sums of HK$2,050.34, HK$36,565.96 and HK$1,312.08 together with interest thereon at the judgment rate from the respective dates of the Awards/Orders until satisfaction. However, subsequent to the commencement of the present proceedings, Mr. Woo has on 28 March 2025 fully satisfied the same with interest by making payment to the Small Claims Tribunal. Hence, SJ at the hearing on 8 October 2025 before the learned Master only requested Mr. Woo’s interest in the Property to stand charged with the outstanding sum under the Subject Award.

5.  After nearly 5 years and 7 months, SJ on 10 October 2024 sent a demand letter to Mr. Woo with a copy of the Subject Award, which was made on 12 March 2019, and a General Demand Note attached thereto, demanding Mr. Woo to settle the costs of HK$34,884.50 under the Subject Award and the accrued interest in the sum of HK$16,174.80, making the total of HK$51,059.30.

6.  Upon receiving the said demand letter, Mr. Woo on 18 October 2024 wrote to DoJ stating that “After extended search at receipt of the above letter, I could hardly retrieve any information about the subject. You could well apprehend the difficulty in retrieving such after more than 8 years ago (sic). Would you mind explaining, with supporting document or payment record, why the subject thereinabove was only brought up after more than 8 years (sic). As per my own understanding, I should have duly settled the subject by then already.”

7.  DoJ then on 22 October 2024 replied to Mr. Woo that, inter alia, according to their record, no payment had been made, and requested Mr. Woo to provide proof of payment, if any.

8.  There were further correspondences exchanged between Mr. Woo and DoJ on this subject. DoJ maintained that no payment had been made regarding the Subject Award under SCTC 8746/2018.

9.  Demand Notes in respect of the three Awards/Orders made in SCTC 20747/2021 for the outstanding costs and interest thereon were also sent to Mr. Woo in October and December 2024. However, since Mr. Woo has subsequently on 28 March 2025 satisfied the same in full, it is therefore not necessary for me to mention their details in this Decision.

10.  On 23 December 2024, SJ took out an ex-parte application for recovery of the aforesaid costs and interest owed by Mr. Woo to SJ under the Subject Award dated 12 March 2019 in SCTC 8746/2018, and the three Awards/Orders respectively dated 1 November 2022, 10 October 2024 and 29 November 2024 in SCTC 20747/2021 by way of charging order.

11.  Upon the said application, the Charging Order: Notice to Show Cause (the “Charging Order Nisi”) was granted by Master B. Mak on 31 December 2024 with the hearing scheduled to be heard on 16 April 2025 for showing cause.

12.  At the hearing on 16 April 2025 before Master Vienne Luk, Mr. Woo alleged that he had fully paid all outstanding amounts under both SCTC 8746/2018 and SCTC 20747/2021. Pursuant to the order of Master Vienne Luk made at the said hearing, inter alia, Mr. Woo was ordered to file and serve an affirmation regarding his alleged payments, and SJ to file an affirmation in reply. The hearing was adjourned to 30 July 2025.

13.  After Mr. Woo’s filing and serving his affirmation on 16 May 2025, SJ checked with the Small Claims Tribunal and noted that the costs and interest under the 3 Awards/Orders of SCTC 20747/2021 had been paid on 28 March 2025. However, no payment was made at the Small Claims Tribunal for the Subject Award of SCTC 8746/2018. DoJ also in their affirmation in reply confirmed that, after checking their internal records and making enquiries with the Small Claims Tribunal, no payment had been made for the Subject Award of SCTC 8746/2018.

14.  SJ thus proceed with the charging order application with the outstanding amount reduced to exclude the costs and interest under the three Awards/Orders of SCTC 20747/2021, and only proceeding to recover the costs and interest under the Subject Award of SCTC 8746/2018.

15.  At the adjourned hearing on 30 July 2025, Master J. Chow adjourned SJ’s application for substantive argument on 8 October 2025.

16.  After considering both parties’ arguments, Master Raymond Chu at the hearing on 8 October 2025 ordered that the Charging Order Nisi be made absolute, with the amount be reduced to HK$51,566.84, together with costs of the application summarily assessed at HK$25,000.

17.  Subsequently, the amount referred to under the Charging Order Absolute, including the sum awarded under the Subject Award, was fully settled on 13 October 2025. A Satisfaction Certificate evidencing the full payment and discharging the Charging Order Nisi and the Charging Order Absolute in these proceedings was therefore provided to Mr. Woo and registered in the Land Registry.

18.  On 22 October 2025, Mr. Woo lodged a Notice of Appeal to Judge in Chambers (Order 58) - Appeal against Master’s Decision. In the said Notice of Appeal, Mr. Woo sought an Order that:

“1. repeal the above order of 8.10.25;

2. repeal the order of 31.12.24;

3. refund the amount of HK$78,952.1 paid to plaintiff on 13.10.25 as demand of 9.10.25, with interest at pre-judgment rate;

4. costs of and before 8.10.25 be to defendant, summarily assessed; and

5. further or other relief as Court thinks fit.

And that the costs of this appeal be paid by the Plaintiff(s) SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE to the Defendant(s) WOO TAK YAN.”

C.  The Legal Principle

19.  It is well established that an appeal against Master’s decision is dealt with by way of an actual rehearing of the application which led to the order under appeal, and the judge treats the matter as though it came before him for the first time. The judge will give the weight it deserves to the previous decision of the Master, but he is in no way bound by it. The judge in chambers is in no way fettered by the previous exercise of the Master’s discretion. (Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, Volume 1, paragraph 58/1/2).

D.  The Parties’ Respective Submissions

20.  Both Mr. Woo and DoJ have prepared their respective written submissions, and both Mr. Woo and Ms. Yuen, Government Counsel appearing for DoJ, have made oral submissions at the hearing before me. This Decision does not seek to encapsulate all the points made by the parties in their respective submissions. Suffice to say, I have considered all of them.

21.  Mr. Woo stated in his written submissions that the main issue for this appeal would be whether the Subject Award has been settled. He at the hearing on 5 January 2026 before me confirmed that in fact that was the only issue for this court to decide.

22.  Mr. Woo said he had satisfied the Subject Award. He submitted that, as stated in his affirmation, all awards against him had been duly settled and no recovery action had ever been taken against him before. He further submitted that if the amount and interest under the Subject Award had not been paid, recovery action should have been taken out thereafter around two months in taking reference to that of SCTC 20747/2021. He said it would be unreasonable for him to leave the Subject Award unsettled, as it would incur interest at the judgment rate. This would be against his own interest. Although this had not been stated in his affirmation, Mr. Woo at the hearing also told this court that if he had not received the relevant demand notes within seven to ten days, he would have made enquiries with DoJ in writing. For the Subject Award, he said he had not located any such letter that he sent to DoJ as aforesaid. He also reminded this court that DoJ has not given any justification for its inaction regarding the Subject Award until 2024.

23.  Mr. Woo told this court that all along he would make payment to DoJ at their office. There has been no exception, save that the payment made on 28 March 2025 was the first time that he made at the Small Claims Tribunal and not at DoJ’s office. He also said, on every occasion when he went to make payment at DoJ’s office, he would bring with a demand note issued by them. He said DoJ would issue receipts to him for the payments he made at their office.

24.  Although he was not able to locate any receipt for payment regarding the Subject Award, Mr. Woo said there was “indirect evidence” to show that he had satisfied the Subject Award in March 2019: he managed to obtain the bank records showing that cash in the sum of HK$52,500 was withdrawn from his bank account on 28 March 2019, which is more than sufficient for him to settle the Subject Award and interest.

25.  Mr. Woo also submitted that the costs summarily assessed by the learned Master at HK$25,000 was not proportionate. He in his written submissions and at the hearing said that the same should be reduced to $14,779 which is half of the costs claimed by DoJ.

26.  On the other hand, Ms. Yuen on behalf of DoJ submitted that, according to the affidavit evidence produced by DoJ, after checking their internal records and checking with the Small Claims Tribunal on 10 June 2025, no payment had been received for the outstanding amount under the Subject Award. She further submitted that Mr. Woo was present when the Subject Award was pronounced by the Small Claims Tribunal on 12 March 2019. He therefore was well aware of his obligation to pay DoJ. Ms. Yuen also told this court that there was only one demand note issued by DoJ in respect of the Subject Award, namely, the General Demand Note issued on 10 October 2024 and attached to their demand letter to Mr. Woo dated the same date. She submitted that Mr. Woo throughout the present proceedings has not produced any documentary proof to substantiate his allegation that he had settled the amount under the Subject Award before the making of the Charging Order Absolute.

27.  Concerning the said bank records, Ms. Yuen submitted that (i) it only shows the withdrawal of cash in the sum of HK$52,500 from Mr. Woo’s account but cannot prove that the money was used to pay the outstanding amount under the Subject Award, and (ii) the outstanding amount under the Subject Award as at March 2019 would be only slightly more than HK$34,884.50 (the awarded sum plus a small post-judgment interest sum) and did not match with the figure of HK$52,500.

28.  Ms. Yuen also told this court that upon the joint inspection of Mr. Woo’s personal belongings left in a Government office, which are now stored by the Government as an involuntary bailee in mini-storage since Mr. Woo did not take the same away, which has been completed on 20 November 2025, Mr. Woo was not able to find and had not submitted any evidence of payment for the amount under the Subject Award prior to their application for charging order.

E.  Discussion

29.  It is true that DoJ is unable to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the said General Demand Note was not issued earlier. However, as confirmed by the parties, the only issue for this appeal is whether the Subject Award has been satisfied before the commencement of these proceedings. Hence, the lack of reasonable explanation is beside the point for the purpose of the present appeal.

30.  Mr. Woo said that he had made payment in March 2019 at the DoJ’s office. However, this allegation is not supported by evidence.

31.  In his affirmation filed on 16 May 2025, Mr. Woo referred to his letter to DoJ dated 18 October 2024, in which he said, “… As per my own understanding, I should have duly settled the subject by then already.” He did not say that payment for the Subject Award must have been made.

32.  It was only after he has obtained the bank records showing that cash in the sum of HK$52,500 was withdrawn from his bank account on 28 March 2019, which was described by Mr. Woo as “indirect evidence”, he then submitted that he had satisfied the Subject Award in March 2019. It is true that the sum withdrawn is more than sufficient to cover the payment under the Subject Award at the time, which was only around HK$35,000, but it is also true that the bank record is only a proof of withdrawal of cash in the sum of HK$52,500 from Mr. Woo’s bank account and not a proof of payment made by Mr. Woo using part of the said sum withdrawn on 28 March 2019.

33.  Mr. Woo confirmed that apart from the payment he made at the Small Claim Tribunal on 28 March 2025, he made payments at the office of DoJ on every other occasion, and receipts were issued to him by DoJ on all those occasions. However, no receipt for the alleged payment made in March 2019 could be found.

34.  From the available evidence before this court, there was only one demand note in respect of the Subject Award issued by DoJ on 10 October 2024. If there was no demand note issued in March 2019, it would not be possible that Mr. Woo has made payment at the time, because according to him he would at each time bring with the relevant demand notes issued by DoJ when he went to their office to make payments.

35.  On the other hand, there is evidence adduced by DoJ that after checking their internal records and after checking with the Small Claims Tribunal, no payment had been received for the outstanding amount under the Subject Award.

36.  Hence, on balance of probabilities, I do not accept that payment for the Subject Award has been made before the commencement of the present proceedings. I am of the view that the Charging Order Absolute was rightly made by the learned Master.

37.  Concerning Mr. Woo’s appeal as to costs (in particular, the amount assessed by the learned Master), it is provided in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, Volume 1, at paragraph 58/1/6 that, “In general, a judge in chambers will not allow an appeal from a master’s costs order unless it is unreasonable or the master erred in law …”

38.  It seems that Mr. Woo does not dispute that the costs of DoJ’s application for charging order should be borne by him. He only submitted that the amount summarily assessed by the learned Master should be further reduced.

39.  In my judgment, the amount summarily assessed by the learned Master is not unreasonable, and there is nothing to show that the learned Master has erred in law.

40.  In the circumstance, the costs order made and the amount summarily assessed by the learned Master should not be disturbed.

F.  Order

41.  For the reasons of the aforesaid, I would dismiss Mr. Woo’s appeal.

42.  Costs should follow the event. I make a costs order nisi that the costs of this appeal be paid by Mr. Woo to the Plaintiff, to be summarily assessed on paper. Unless an application is made within 14 days from the date of this Decision to vary the same, this costs order nisi shall become absolute.

43.  For the purpose of summary assessment, the Plaintiff is directed to lodge and serve his statement of costs within 7 days upon the costs order nisi becoming absolute, and Mr. Woo is directed to lodge and serve his statement of objections (of not more than 1 page), if any, within 7 days thereafter. The summary assessment will then be dealt with on the papers (no matter whether statement of objections is lodged by Mr. Woo within time) thereafter. The costs assessed shall be paid by Mr. Woo to the Plaintiff within 14 days after the assessment.