FAN SUI WONG v. ZHOU JUN YING

HCMP 333/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 333 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  This is the application of Fan Sui Wong (“Fan”), the plaintiff in these proceedings, by way of an Originating Summons dated 3 March 2026 (the “OS”) for an order to vacate the registration in the Land Registry of the Amended Writ of Summons[1] dated 23 May 2019 (the “Amended Writ”) in HCA 898/2019 (the “2019 Action”) as lis pendens in respect of Flats B and C, 18^th Floor, Tower 5 of the Beaumont, No. 8 Shek Kok Road, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories (the “Properties”).

2.  As a result of the change of name by the defendant in these proceedings, Fan took out a Summons dated 8 May 2026 to amend the OS to include the new name of the defendant. Mr Chan, on behalf of the defendant, confirms that the defendant does not object to the said Summons.

A. Factual Background

3.  The Amended Writ was issued on 23 May 2019 by Zhou Jun Ying (now known as Zhou Zhi Ru) (“Zhou”), the defendant in these proceedings. It was registered as lis pendens against the Properties on 30 May 2019.

4.  The subject matter of the Amended Writ relates to a loan of RMB4,000,000 allegedly advanced by Zhou to Fan on 23 May 2013 (the “Loan”), which was allegedly guaranteed by one Choi Ming Sum (“Choi”).

5.  It is Zhou’s case that she was induced to advance the Loan by representation, which is false and untrue.

6.  In the Amended Writ, Zhou claims against Fan for the said sum of RMB4,000,000 and/or damages to be assessed. Further or alternatively, Zhou also claims “an injunction or order to restrain [Fan] from selling or disposing of the Properties and dissipating his assets and/or properties with value equivalent to the total amount of RMB4,000,000 and outstanding interest” and an order of account.

7.  It is Zhou’s evidence that the Amended Writ was served on Fan by registered post sent by her former solicitors on 1 June 2019[2]. Although there is dispute as to whether the Amended Writ was received by Fan[3], it is common ground that since 1 June 2019, there has been no progress in the 2019 Action.

8.  It is also worth mentioning that before bringing those claims in the 2019 Action, Zhou had previously brought claims in HCA 202/2017 (the “2017 Action”) against Fan and Choi in respect of the Loan. The 2017 Action was a simple claim for recovery of the Loan. The claim or relief in the 2017 Action did not touch on or concern the Properties at all. Zhou initially obtained summary judgment against Choi (but not Fan) on 27 February 2018, which judgment was later set aside on appeal to DHCJ Keith Yeung SC (as he then was) on 24 December 2018. Similar to the 2019 Action, Zhou has not taken any step to pursue the 2017 Action against Fan.

B. Grounds for Vacation of Registration

9.  Ms Teresa Yu, counsel for Fan, invites this Court to vacate the lis pendens on three grounds:-

(1) First, pursuant to s.17 of the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap. 128) (“LRO”), the registration of a lis pendens shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of registration. Since the Amended Writ was first registered against the Properties on 30 May 2019, it ceased to have effect on 30 May 2024 and this Court accordingly should vacate the registration.

(2) Second, the 2019 Action was not commenced and/or prosecuted bona fide.

(3) Third, the Amended Writ is in any event not registrable as it does not relate to or affect the Properties in any proprietary sense.

C. Discussions

C1. First ground: The registration ceasing to have effect

10.  As to the first ground, Mr Chris Chan, counsel for Zhou, does not seriously dispute that the registration of the Amended Writ as lis pendens has ceased to have effect under LRO s.17 on 30 May 2024. Mr Chan, however, argues that if the lis pendens has already ceased to have effect, there is nothing for Fan to vacate.

11.  I am unable to agree with Mr Chan’s submission. Even though the Amended Writ as lis pendens has ceased to have effect since 30 May 2024, the fact remains that it is still shown in the land search of the Properties as a registered lis pendens[4]. There is no reason why this Court cannot order its vacation.

12.  This on its own should be sufficient to justify this Court granting an order to vacate the registration. However, given Mr Chan’s clear indication that Zhou reserves her right to re-register the Amended Writ as lis pendens in his written submissions[5], I consider that I should also deal with the other two grounds raised by Ms Yu on behalf of Fan.

C2. Second ground: The 2019 Action is not prosecuted bona fide

13.  As to the second ground, as rightly pointed out by Ms Yu, the absence of bona fide is clearly demonstrated by the complete inaction on the part of Zhou in the prosecution of the 2019 Action. Since June 2019, Zhou has done nothing to pursue the 2019 Action. In her affirmation in opposition to these proceedings, Zhou does not give any explanation for her complete inaction in the 2019 Action.

14.  Under LRO s.19, the court may order for the vacation of a lis pendens where it is “satisfied that the litigation is not prosecuted bona fide, or for other good cause shown”. In Treasure Spot Finance Company v Lai Yun Tak [2023] HKCFI 795, DHCJ H. Au-Yeung (as he then was) accepted (at §17-20) that as a matter of principle, long delay in the prosecution of an action which is unexplained can provide a foundation for an inference of bad faith.

15.  The present case is an extreme case where Zhou, without any explanation, did nothing to prosecute the 2019 Action since the registration of the Amended Writ as lis pendens on 30 May 2019 and the service of it on Fan by registered post. This is in my view sufficient to infer bad faith.

16.  Indeed, the inference of bad faith is all the more compelling in light of the fact that the 2017 Action was brought against Fan (as well as Choi) purely for the recovery of the Loan. There was nothing in the Statement of Claim filed in the 2017 Action suggesting that there was any connection between the Loan and the acquisition of the Properties. These circumstances further strengthen the inference that the 2019 Action was not brought in good faith.

17.  Mr Chan emphasised that Fan must have knowledge of the 2019 Action and chose to do nothing. In my view, Fan’s inaction neither justifies nor explains Zhou’s complete inaction as the plaintiff of the 2019 Action for the past 7 years since 2019.

18.  For these reasons, I am satisfied that the bringing and the prosecution of the 2019 Action is not bona fide, and that the registration of the Amended Writ should be vacated on this basis.

C3. Third ground: The Amended Writ is in any event not registrable

19.  As to the third ground, Ms Yu submits that none of the matters pleaded in the Amended Writ give rise to any proprietary claim for any interest in the Properties. As explained by To J in LY Group Development Ltd v East Canton Ltd [2015] 4 HKLRD 84 (at §61), “the essential ingredient of a lis pendens are that it must be an action affecting the land in the sense that it is one which asserts a claim of right, or a claim to charge some specific property or some proprietary right in land”. Ms Yu argues that the Amended Writ is therefore not registrable as lis pendens under LRO: see Ample Sky Holdings Ltd v Trillion Wide Credit Finance Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2862 per DHCJ Burns SC, at §§7-8.

20.  In the Amended Writ, it is pleaded (at §§21-22) that the Loan of RMB4,000,000 was obtained by deception or fraud so that the dealing of the same constituted “money laundering” contrary to s.25 of Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) (“OSCO”). On that basis, it is further pleaded (at §§23-24) that Fan’s use of the said sum (or any part thereof) for payment to his wife or for payment of prices for his purchase of the Properties constituted “money laundering”, such that the Properties are benefits which Fan obtained by way of deception.

21.  I note that Mr Chan asserts in his written submissions for Zhou[6] if the Properties were purchased from the proceeds of indictable offence, Zhou is entitled to claim that Fan is holding the Properties on resulting trust for Zhou. He, however, cites no authority in support of such proposition. Even putting that aside, Mr Chan in his written submissions accepts that no “trust” is pleaded or claimed in the Amended Writ[7]. Without pleading or claiming “trust” in the Amended Writ, I cannot see how Mr Chan (on behalf of Zhou) can argue that the claims as pleaded in the Amended Writ concern any proprietary interest in the Properties.

22.  In this regard, it does not escape my attention that Zhou in paragraph 3 of the prayers for relief of the Amended Writ asks for “an injunction or order to restrain [Fan] from selling or disposing of the Properties and dissipating his assets and/or properties with value equivalent to the total amount of RMB4,000,000 and outstanding interest”. In my view, the formulation of such relief clearly demonstrates that what the pleader had in mind at the time was some kind of Mareva relief covering the general assets of Fan (including the Properties), rather than any proprietary claim against the Properties as such.

23.  For the above reasons, I agree with Ms Yu’s submission that the matters pleaded do not amount to any claim beyond a personal claim arising out of the alleged Loan and misrepresentation. Accordingly, the registration of the Amended Writ should also be vacated for this additional reason.

D. Conclusion

24.  For the above reasons, I would grant an order in terms of the said Summons dated 8 May 2026 and paragraph 1 of the OS (as amended) to vacate the registration of the Amended Writ.

25.  At the hearing, Ms Yu also asks for an injunction to be granted to restrain any re-registration of the Amended Writ against the Properties. Mr Chan, on behalf of Zhou, gives an undertaking that if this Court orders the vacation of the Amended Writ, Zhou will not seek its re-registration. Mr Chan also made it clear that this undertaking is without prejudice to Zhou’s right (if any) to re-amended the Amended Writ and to seek the registration of such Re-Amended Writ. Ms Yu is agreeable to accept such undertaking in place of injunction.

26.  As to costs, there is no reason to depart from the rule that costs should follow the event. Thus, Zhou should pay Fan’s costs of these proceedings.

27.  For the reasons explained above, I am of the view that this is an appropriate case to order “indemnity costs” against Zhou. This is to reflect this Court’s strong disapproval of Zhou wrongly persisting in maintaining the registration notwithstanding that (i) it has ceased to have effect since May 2024; (ii) she has not prosecuted the 2019 Action bona fide; and (iii) the Amended Writ is plainly not registrable.

28.  I accede to Ms Yu’s request for summary assessment. Ms Yu submitted a statement of costs of a total sum of $109,050 for the entire proceedings, including this hearing. I consider that such costs are reasonable. Bearing in mind that I have ordered Zhou to bear costs on indemnity basis, I would allow the sum in full.