|
DCMP 6955/2024
[2026] HKDC 262
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 6955 OF 2024
------------------------------------
| |
IN THE MATTER OF ALL THAT one moiety or half part or share of and in ALL THAT one equal undivided third part or share of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as SECTION A OF LOT No.1536 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT No.76 (“the Land”) And of and in the messuages erections and buildings erected thereon (“the Building”) TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the SECOND FLOOR including the Balcony adjacent thereto and the ROOF of the Building which said Second Floor and Roof are shown on the Floor Plan annexed to an Assignment registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No.06100500780048 (“the Assignment”) and thereon coloured Pink) (“the Property”) |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF the Second Legal Charge dated 14th December 2021 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 21121700770046 (“the Second Legal Charge”) |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF a money judgment dated 30th November 2023 granted in DCCJ 2911/2023 |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Orders 83A and 88 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap.336H |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Partition Ordinance, Cap.352 |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Sections 38A of the District Court Ordinance, Cap.336 |
------------------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
FIELD FINANCE LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
（油田財務有限公司） |
|
| |
and |
|
| |
WU KWOK LIM （胡國廉） |
1st Defendant |
| |
WOO KWOK KWONG （胡國光） |
2nd Defendant |
------------------------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge Vincent Lung in Chambers (Open to Public) |
| Dates of Hearing: |
9 February 2026 |
| Date of Decision: |
9 February 2026 |
| Date of Reasons for Decision: |
20 February 2026 |
--------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR DECISION
--------------------------------------------
A. Introduction
1. By an Originating Summons dated 16 December 2024 as amended on 16 July 2025 (with service of the Amended Originating Summons dispensed with), the Plaintiff commenced this mortgage action against the Defendants pursuant to Orders 83A and 88 of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H) (“RDC”).
2. The 1st Defendant has not filed an Acknowledgement of Service. The 2nd Defendant is represented by solicitors; he has entered into a settlement with the Plaintiff as detailed below (resulting in a Consent Summons dated 18 December 2025 which has been approved by the Court).
3. At the hearing on 9 February 2026, the Plaintiff was represented by Mr Zavier To. The 1st Defendant did not appear. The 2nd Defendant has been excused from attendance.
4. I am satisfied that the Originating Summons and other court documents including the Notice of Hearing have been properly served on the 1st Defendant. I therefore proceeded with the hearing in his absence.
5. I made an order in favour of the Plaintiff at the hearing. These are my reasons.
B. Factual background
6. The Plaintiff is a licensed money lender under the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap 163) (“MLO”). The present proceedings arose from the 1st Defendant’s default in repayment of a loan secured by a second mortgage over his half-share interest in the property known as the Second Floor including the Balcony adjacent thereto and the Roof, No.177 Kan Tau Tsuen North, New Territories (“Property”).
7. The Property has been jointly owned by the 1st and 2nd Defendants as tenants in common in equal shares since 2021. It is subject to a first mortgage in favour of The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (“HSBC”).
8. On 14 December 2021, the Plaintiff advanced a loan of HK$1,800,000 (“Loan”) to the 1st Defendant pursuant to a written loan agreement (“Loan Agreement”) which was secured by a second mortgage of the same date over the 1st Defendant’s half-share in the Property (“Second Mortgage”). The Loan carried an interest rate of 23.97% per annum repayable by 180 monthly instalments.
9. The 1st Defendant has been in default of repayment since the 14th repayment due on 14 May 2023 leading to subsequent demands by the Plaintiff. Eventually the Plaintiff commenced DCCJ 2911/2023 and obtained judgment on 30 November 2023 against the 1st Defendant for outstanding principal plus interest (accrued and accruing) (“Judgment”).
10. The 1st Defendant has not made any repayment of the Judgment debt. The Plaintiff therefore commenced these proceedings to obtain an order for sale. HSBC has been informed of these proceedings and has indicated that it does not intend to oppose or object to the proposed sale.
C. Analysis
11. On the basis of the uncontested evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is a licensed money lender and has complied with the requirements of the MLO, Order 83A and Order 88 of the RDC.
12. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to an order for sale of the Property pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the Second Mortgage. I am also satisfied that the 1st Defendant has not made any repayment of the debt due under the Judgment.
13. The Plaintiff, being a legal chargee of a partial interest entitled to enter upon and take possession of the Property upon the 1st Defendant’s default, is a “person interested” in the Property under section 3 of the Partition Ordinance (Cap 352) (“PO”) such that it may ask the court for partition or sale of the Property: see CC Credit Services Ltd v Lok Ka Yin [2025] HKCFI 2528 at §11; American Wilson Finance Ltd v Ching Yong Andy [2023] HKCFI 1786 at §22.
14. As a result, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is an interested person under section 3 of the PO and has the locus standi to apply for an order for sale of the Property.
15. Section 6(1) of the PO empowers the court to make an order for the sale of the property where it appears to the court that a partition of the property would not be beneficial to all the persons interested by reason of (a) the nature of land to which the proceedings relate, (b) the number of the persons interested or presumptively interested, (c) the absence or disability of some of the persons, or (d) any other circumstances.
16. In Re Lau Hiu Tuen (HCB 8430 of 2006, 20 August 2015), at §§20-24, G Lam J (as he then was) summarised the relevant principles as follows:
(i) A co-owner has the basic right to rid himself of the shackles of co-ownership, and if he has no other remedy, ask for an order for partition or sale.
(ii) When it is impracticable to make an order for partition, the court should make an order for sale unless it is persuaded (the burden being on the opposing co-owner) that such an order will not be beneficial to all the co-owners, or that it will result in very great hardship to one co-owner.
(iii) Whether an order for sale is beneficial to all co-owners is not determined by the dissent of the opposing co-owner, or the assertion of them that it is not beneficial. It is to be determined objectively.
(iv) An order for sale would not be refused unless all the co-owners would be benefited by its refusal, or an order for sale would be detrimental to all the co-owners, or unless it will result in very great hardship to one co-owner.
17. Applying Re Lau Hiu Tuen to the present case, I am satisfied that an order for sale of the Property should be made:
(i) I agree that it is difficult to find a buyer who would be willing to acquire only a half share in the Property;
(ii) In any event, the 2nd Defendant consents to the sale and has reached a settlement with the Plaintiff to purchase the 1st Defendant’s half share. In this regard, the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant filed a Consent Summons setting out the terms of their settlement, essentially for the 2nd Defendant to acquire the 1st Defendant’s half share so long as the 2nd Defendant shall (i) settle all outstanding government rent, rates and other outgoings affecting the Property, (ii) fully settle the indebtedness towards HSBC under the first mortgage and (iii) pay HK$1,270,000 to the Plaintiff. There are further fallback provisions for a sale of the Property to the market if the 2nd Defendant should fail to honour the terms of the sale and purchase such that HSBC’s interests as the first mortgagee would be adequately protected.
18. For these reasons, I made an order in terms of the draft order submitted to me at the hearing as amended.
| |
( Vincent Lung )
Deputy District Judge
|
Mr Zavier To, instructed by K B Chau & Co, for plaintiff
The 1st defendant was not represented and did not appear
Attendance of Lau & Ngan, Solicitors LLP for 2nd defendant was excused
|