ORIENTAL FA LTD v. TO YUEN FANG LOUISE AND ANOTHER

HCA 919/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 919 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

______________________________________

R E A S O N S    F O R    D E C I S I O N

______________________________________

1.  At the hearing on 28 August 2026 where the 1st defendant (“D1”) applied for stay of execution of the Order made by this court on 24 June 2025 (“the Order”), pending the determination of D1 and 2nd defendant (“D2”) ’s Notice of Appeal filed on 21 July 2025 (“D1’s Application”), I dismissed the application with costs in favour of the plaintiff (“P”). I said I would provide the reasons for my decision in due course. Here are the reasons.

Background

2.  In a nutshell, this is a money lender mortgage action commenced by P back in May 2024. P is a licensed money lender. D1 is the borrower of a loan from P. D2 is the mortgagor mortgaging the properties known as (i) Units A and B on 27th Floor, Century Tower 1, Nos. 1 and 1A Tregunter Path, Hong Kong; and (ii) Car Parking Spaces Nos. 62 and 75 on Level 3, Century Tower 1, Nos. 1 and 1A Tregunter Path, Hong Kong (“the Mortgaged Properties”) to secure the loan. The Order, which was made over 14 months ago, inter alia, allowed summary judgment to be entered against D1 in the sum of HK$130 million plus interest and costs and ordered the defence & counterclaim of D1 & D2 to be struck out. The rest of the Order concerned directions for P to seek default judgment against D2.

3.  Despite D1 & D2 having filed their Notice of Appeal back in July 2025, they never took any steps to fix the date for the appeal hearing. Instead, D1 and her husband made repeated applications to try to delay P’s possession of the Mortgaged Properties.

4.  On 26 August 2026, D1 took out an ex parte summons for stay of execution. The matter was heard before Madam Justice Au-Yeung J where she ordered D1 to issue an inter parte summons to be returnable before me on 28 August 2026.

5.  D1 filed the inter parte summons and affirmation on 27 August 2026. They were served on P in the afternoon on the same day, leaving P with less than 24 hours to prepare for the hearing.

6.  At the hearing, D1 applied to let her husband Guy Kwok-Hung Lam (“Lam”) to act as “Mackenzie friend” on the basis that he knew the matter more than her. The application was rejected by the court as there was no good reason why D1, who is fluent in English and who is fully capable of speaking for herself, needs Lam to speak on her behalf.

7.  Although not a party to these proceedings, Lam is no stranger to it at all. Lam is an undischarged bankrupt, husband of D1 and a director of D2 from 26 September 2023 until 15 March 2025. He also made multiple unsuccessful applications as a “non-party” for stay of execution of the Writ of Possession obtained by P.

Events since the Order was made

8.  P’s solicitors have very helpfully prepared a chronology of relevant events since the Order was made on 24 June 2025. They are based on documents either filed in court or orders made by the court. Therefore, they are indisputable. I would reproduce the same below for ease of reference:

Date	Event
24 June 2025	D1 was ordered to pay P the outstanding principal sum under the loan together with interest and costs under the Order
21 July 2025	D1 and D2 filed the Notice of Appeal
29 August 2025	D2 was ordered, inter alia, to deliver vacant possession of the Mortgaged Properties to P within 28 days after service of the order
4 September 2025	P filed the Respondent’s Notice
20 November 2025	Judgment and Order dated 29 August 2025 were served on D1 and D2’s solicitors. D2 was required to deliver vacant possession of the Mortgaged Properties on or before 18 December 2025, but D2 failed to do so
10 December 2025	Lam applied for legal aid
25 February 2026	Writ of Possession was issued
19 March 2026	1st appointment with Bailiff’s Office – Notice to Quit was posted up on the Mortgaged Properties
24 March 2026	Lam (as a non-party) took out his first application for stay of execution of the Writ of Possession by way of summons filed on 24 March 2026 (“Lam’s 1st Stay Application”)
25 March 2026	Lam’s application for legal aid was refused
27 March 2026	1st call-over hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application took place before Master SH Lee. As Lam is a bankrupt, the Master directed, inter alia, Lam to liaise with his trustee in bankruptcy to ascertain whether he is required to seek leave of the Bankruptcy Court to take out Lam’s 1st Stay Application and adjourned the matter to a second call-over hearing
27 March 2026	P received a notice from the Senior Legal Aid Counsel dated 23 March 2026 that D1 had applied for legal aid. Proceedings were therefore stayed for 42 days
11 May 2026	2nd call-over hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application before Master Thomas Kwong. Directions were given for the filing of evidence and adjourned the 1st Stay Application to 8 June 2026
20 May 2026	2nd Appointment with Bailiff’s Office – Notice to Quit was posted up on the Mortgaged Properties
21 May 2026	Lam made an ex parte application for interim stay of execution. Master Dick Ho granted interim stay of execution until 11:30 a.m. on 8 June 2026
5 June 2026	D1’s application for legal aid was refused
8 June 2026	Third call-over hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application before Master SH Lee, where the substantive hearing was fixed to take place before Master in Chambers on 29 June 2026 at 2:30 pm (with 2 hours reserved). Master SH Lee also granted an interim stay of execution of the Writ of Possession over Units A and B of the Mortgaged Properties until 29 June 2026
17 June 2026	Lam applied for an adjournment of the substantive hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application by way of Summons
25 June 2026	Master Jocelyn Leung ordered, inter alia, that the hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application be adjourned to 16 July 2026 before a Master (with 2 hours reserved)
16 July 2026	Substantive hearing of Lam’s 1st Stay Application took place before Master Tony Ko. Master Tony Ko dismissed Lam’s 1st Stay Application and ordered that costs summarily assessed on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel at HK$270,000 be paid by Lam to P (“Master Tony Ko’s Order”)
29 July2026	Lam took out an appeal against Master Tony Ko’s Order, returnable before Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee on 26 November 2026 at 9:30 am (with 30 minutes reserved) (“Lam’s Appeal”)
3 August 2026	Lam took out his 2nd stay application (as a non-party), returnable before DHCJ Kent Yee on 7 August 2026, seeking, inter alia, a stay of execution of Master Tony Ko’s Order pending the final determination of Lam’s Appeal, or in the alternative, until 28 February 2027 or such other period as the court thinks fit to allow Lam to complete the alleged “Golden HKD Project” (“Lam’s 2nd Stay Application”)
7 August 2026	Hearing of Lam’s 2nd Stay Application before DHCJ Kent Yee. The judge opined that the proper procedure was for Lam to have issued a stay application before Master Tony Ko who had already heard submissions from both parties and determined the 1st Stay Application. The judge therefore dismissed the 2nd Stay Application with costs summarily assessed at HK$24,000 be paid to P
12 August 2026	P received Notice of Application of Legal Aid dated 11 August 2026, notifying that Lam has applied for legal aid (for the second time)
14 August 2026	Lam took out his third stay of execution application by way of Summons dated 11 August 2026 (“Lam’s 3rd Stay Application”) as an alleged third party applicant
20 August 2026	Hearing of Lam’s 3rd Stay Application before Master Jeffrey Chau where the Master (i) lifted the stay for 42 days under Legal Aid Regulation 7A; (ii) dismissed Lam’s 3rd Stay Application, and (iii) ordered indemnity costs summarily assessed at HK$50,000 be paid by Lam to P
24 August 2026	Bailiff posted Notice to Occupier to Quit on the Mortgaged Properties
27 August 2026	D1’s Application was taken out
31 August 2026	Scheduled appointment with bailiff for possession

D1’s Grounds for Stay of Execution

9.  D1’s grounds for seeking a stay of execution can be found in her affirmation filed on 27 August 2026 in support of D1’s Application.

10.  In short, the grounds for D1’s Application can be summarised as follows:

(a)  Lam was denied the opportunity to be heard before this court on 24 June 2025 on the “Golden HKD (黃金港元) Project” (“the Project”);

(b)  The Project is of public interest and the Property is required to complete the final phase of the Project;

(c)  The appeal has reasonable prospects of success;

(d)  The appeal would be rendered nugatory without an immediate stay; and

(e)  The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours granting an immediate stay pending the appeal.

11.  I shall discuss the first two issues raised by D1 separately while the rest of the issues will be discussed under the headings of abuse of process and prejudice & balance of convenience.

Lam’s Alleged Denied Opportunity to be Heard

12.  D1 alleges that at the hearing before me on 24 June 2025[1] , Lam attended on behalf of D2 and Lam had prepared a 15-page skeleton submission and a list of authorities in anticipation of making submissions to the court. The court refused to allow Lam to make submissions on behalf of D2 and therefore effectively had denied any opportunity for D2 to be heard at the hearing. Hence, D1 claims that the Project which allegedly  involves the Mortgaged Properties and has significant implications for Hong Kong and the Nation and thus of public interest, was never brought to the attention of the court. D1 further claims that Lam’s written submission did not include details of the Project as it involves state secret and sensitive information in geopolitics.

13.  D1 claims that the refusal to allow Lam to make submissions constitutes a fundamental procedural irregularity that vitiates the Order. If Lam had been permitted to make submissions, the outcome of the hearing may well have been different.

14.  I do not accept the above submissions made by D1 at all as the issue of D2’s representation on the date of the hearing has been fully explored and the reasons why Lam was refused the right to act on behalf of D2 have been clearly stated in the Decision: see §§3-9 of the Decision.

15.  In my judgment, even if the court were to allow Lam to make submission on behalf of D2 at the hearing, it is clear that any purported defence based on the Project would get Ds nowhere as it is completely fanciful, out of touch with reality and devoid of merits as can be seen in the following paragraphs.

The Project is allegedly of public interest and the Mortgaged Properties are required to complete the final phase of the Project

16.  After the Order was made, Lam (as a non-party) applied for stay of execution of the Writ of Possession on 3 separate occasions. All his 3 Stay Applications had been rejected by the court: (See Chronology above).

17.  In the affirmations filed in support of his 3 Stay Applications, Lam tried to explain what the Project was about.

18.  According to him, the Project is a public interest project intended to promote the internationalisation of the Renminbi and to strengthen Hong Kong’s position as an international financial centre. The Project aims to establish a gold-backed Hong Kong dollar and offshore Renminbi (CHY) system.

19.  According to D1, the Mortgaged Properties are required to complete the final phase of the Project in that she was told by Lam and believes the Mortgaged Properties have special and unique Feng Shui value in connection with the Project; and they are critical to the completion of the final phase of the Project with a number of key meetings already scheduled and VIP participants already notified. Thus, D1 claims that the public interest would be adversely affected if P were to take possession of the Mortgaged Properties before the appeal is heard. As such, D1 claims the public interest in the completion of the Project outweighs P’s private interest in immediate enforcement of the judgment.

20.  I find D1’s above submission rather absurd and totally detached from reality. I do not believe that such Project existed at all. Even if it existed, I do not see how it would have anything to do with the intended possession of the Mortgaged Properties by P as a money lender who had lent money to D2. I find the whole thing was made up by Lam with the hope that it would somehow put off the inevitable event that Ds have to deliver possession of the Mortgaged Properties to P.

21.  Contrary to D1’s submission, I find Ds intended appeal enjoys no reasonable prospect of success at all.

Abuse of Process

22.  I agree with Ms Siu who represented P at the hearing before me that D1’s Application must be viewed against the procedural history of the matter.

23.  As P has pointed out, following the dismissal of Lam’s 2^nd Stay Application, P’s solicitors, Messrs. Iu, Lai & Li (“P’s Solicitors”), wrote to the trustees-in-bankruptcy of Lam’s estate on 19 August 2026 to update them on Lam’s continued conduct in these proceedings and to provide a copy of P’s Proof of Debt in respect of the summarily assessed legal costs awarded by the court.

24.  Prior to that correspondence, the trustees had adopted a neutral stance, having accepted the written undertaking provided by Lam’s relative, Ms. Elaine To Yuen Ying, that she would be responsible for the legal costs associated with Lam’s stay applications. However, following their consideration of the subsequent events in these proceedings, including the repeated applications made by Lam, the court’s orders dismissing those applications, and P’s filing of Proof of Debt with the Official Receiver’s Office, the trustees reconsidered their position.

25.  Significantly, by a letter dated 24 August 2026, the trustees formally notified P’s Solicitors that they object to and oppose any further applications and/or the outstanding Notice of Appeal pursued by Lam in relation to these proceedings. The trustees further provided P’s Solicitors with a copy of their letter of even date addressed to Lam, in which they expressly directed him to immediately “cease and desist” from filing or pursuing any further applications in these proceedings and to forthwith withdraw his Notice of Appeal: (See Annex 5 for copies of the letter dated 19 August 2026 from P’s Solicitors to the trustees and copy of the letter from the trustees to P’s Solicitors dated 24 August 2026).

26.  As can be seen from D1’s Summons and the affirmation of D1 filed on 27 August 2026, D1 is now seeking to relitigate points previously raised by Lam in his 3 Stay Applications, each of which was considered and rejected by the court. Thus, D1’s Application is therefore nothing more than a further attempt to revisit matters which have already been determined against Lam and the Ds through a different procedural route.

27.  Further, although D1 and D2 filed their Notice of Appeal on 21 July 2025, more than a year has elapsed without any step being taken by D1 and D2 to fix a hearing date for the appeal. Tellingly, D1 did not seek a stay of execution at or around the time the Notice of Appeal was filed. Instead, the present application was only brought after Lam’s 3 Stay Applications had been dismissed by the court and the trustee’s latest cease-and-desist letter to Lam. In my view, Lam and D1 demonstrate a continuing effort to delay P’s enforcement of its judgment and to postpone the inevitable consequences of the court’s earlier determinations.

28.  In addition, D1 claims that she has applied for legal aid and that she is awaiting the final determination of the Legal Aid Department. This is not true. Whilst Exhibit TYP-4 shows that D1’s application for legal aid was made on 23 March 2026, the application has in fact already been refused by the Legal Aid Department: (See Annex 6 of P’s submissions for copy of the Memorandum of Notification that a Party has been Refused Legal Aid dated 5 June 2026).

29.  In the aforestated circumstances, I find D1’s Application amounts to an abuse of process.

Prejudice & Balance of Convenience

30.  In my view, D1 and Lam’s conduct have caused and continues to cause significant prejudice to P.

31.  As of 16 March 2026, the preliminary valuation of the Mortgaged Properties is HK$130 million: (see §21 of the 4th Affirmation of Lui Yuet Ting filed on 26 May 2026 and pages 34-35 of Exhibit LYT-4). This is insufficient to cover D1 and D2’s outstanding liabilities when the outstanding principal of the loan is already HK$130 million. Furthermore, more than six months have elapsed since the Writ of Possession was issued. Yet, due to the repeated applications and obstructive conduct of Lam and D1, P still has been unable to obtain vacant possession of the Mortgaged Properties and realise its security. Every further delay exposes P to continuing prejudice and the risk of an increasing shortfall. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience clearly does not lie with granting stay of execution to allow Ds to continue to occupy the Mortgaged Properties.

32.  In my judgment, it is imperative that P be permitted to obtain possession of the Mortgaged Properties without further obstruction and be placed in a position to market and sell the Mortgaged Properties as soon as possible.

CONCLUSION

33.  For the above reasons, I dismissed D1’s Summons with costs to P which was summarily assessed at HK$30,000 and to be paid forthwith by D1.