|
HCMP 2470/2024
[2026] HKCFI 1702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2470 OF 2024
_______________
| |
IN THE MATTER of Order 83A and Order 88 of the Rules of the High Court |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the properties known as (1) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 5th part or share of and in SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION B OF NEW KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.1424 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.1A NGA TSIN LONG ROAD TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the whole of the SECOND FLOOR of NO.1A NGA TSIN LONG ROAD; and (2) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 24th part or share of and in THE REMAINING PORTION OF NEW KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.1990 and THE REMAINING PORTION OF NEW KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.2683 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NOS. 31 & 33 NGA TSIN WAI ROAD and NOS.27 & 29 NGA TSIN LONG ROAD TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT PORTION on the FOURTH FLOOR of NOS. 31 & 33 NGA TSIN WAI ROAD and NOS.27 & 29 NGA TSIN LONG ROAD and is now known as NO.31 NGA TSIN WAI ROAD FOURTH FLOOR; and (3) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 5th part or share of and in KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.10204 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.55 GRANVILLE ROAD TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the FIRST FLOOR of NO.55 GRANVILLE ROAD; and (4) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 4th part or share of and in KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.8719 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.43 GRANVILLE ROAD TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the SECOND FLOOR of NO.43 GRANVILLE ROAD; and (5) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 136th part or share of and in THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO.2617 and THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO.2626 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as WAI TAK BUILDING TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT FLAT NO.3 on the THIRD FLOOR of WAI TAK BUILDING; and (6) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 25th part or share of and in THE REMAINING PORTION OF KOWLOON INLAND LOT NO.2095 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT SECOND FLOOR of BLOCK C of the Building (now known as 2nd Floor (2/F of Block C) of No.139A Tung Choi Street, Kowloon) |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the properties known as ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 32nd part or share of and in INLAND LOT NO.6978, THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO.6977, THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO.6976 and INLAND LOT NO.6975 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NOS.6, 8, 10 and 12 TIT HONG LANE TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the FIFTH FLOOR and ROOF of the said NO.12 TIT HONG LANE |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the properties known as (1) ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT A on the FRONT PORTION on the THIRD FLOOR (formerly known as the whole of the Third Floor) of NO.169 WAI YIP STREET; and (2) ALL THOSE 5 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT B on the REAR PORTION on the THIRD FLOOR of the NO.169 WAI YIP STREET; and (3) ALL THOSE 16 equal undivided 100th parts or shares of and in ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING, NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT A4 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING and (4) ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 100th parts or shares of and in ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING, NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT A6 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the properties known as (1) ALL THOSE 12 equal undivided 100th parts or shares of and in ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy FIRSTLY ALL THAT UNIT A7 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of the Building AND SECONDLY ALL THAT UNIT A8 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of NO.169 WAI YIP STREET; and (2) ALL THOSE 17 equal undivided 100th parts or shares of and in ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING, NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT A3 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING; and (3) ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 100th parts or shares of and in ALL THOSE 14 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING, NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT A1 on the FIRST FLOOR (FRONT PORTION) of JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING; and (4) ALL THAT 1 equal undivided 8th part or share of and in ALL THOSE 5 equal undivided 140th parts or shares of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as KWUN TONG INLAND LOT NO.267 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING, NO.169 WAI YIP STREET TOGETHER with the exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT B1 of FACTORY UNIT being UNIT B on the ELEVENTH FLOOR, REAR PORTION of JONE MULT FACTORY BUILDING |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Deed of Guarantee made by Tang Yiu Sing and Tang Yiu Man Raymond in favour of Bao Yuan Finance Limited on the 24th August 2021 |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of an application for an Order for possession of the Mortgaged Properties and payment by Lau Yee Ting, Ip Li Sau Lun, Ip Siu Ping, Crown Top Investments Limited, Gold Classic (H.K.) Limited, Long Dynamic Limited and Orient Win Development Limited |
_______________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
BAO YUAN FINANCE LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
and |
| |
LAU YEE TING |
1st Defendant |
| |
IP LI SAU LUN |
2nd Defendant |
| |
IP SIU PING |
3rd Defendant |
| |
CROWN TOP INVESTMENTS LIMITED |
4th Defendant |
| |
GOLD CLASSIC (H.K.) LIMITED |
5th Defendant |
| |
LONG DYNAMIC LIMITED |
6th Defendant |
| |
ORIENT WIN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED |
7th Defendant |
| |
TANG YIU SING |
8th Defendant |
| |
TANG YIU MAN RAYMOND |
9th Defendant |
_______________
| Before: |
Hon Eugene Fung J in Chambers (Open to Public) |
| Date of Hearing: |
18 March 2026 |
| Date of Decision: |
18 March 2026 |
__________________
D E C I S I O N
__________________
1. In its Originating Summons dated 21 November 2024, the Plaintiff has, inter alia, made a claim against the 3rd Defendant for all monies due under a loan agreement dated 24 August 2021. At the first hearing of the Originating Summons on 28 May 2025, retrospective leave was granted to the 3rd Defendant to file her first affirmation dated 22 May 2025. The substantive hearing of the Originating Summons was subsequently scheduled to be heard on 12 November 2025. On 8 October 2025, the 3rd Defendant applied for leave to file and serve her second affirmation, which application was dismissed by a Master on 23 October 2025.
2. This is the 3rd Defendant’s appeal against the Master’s refusal to grant leave to her to file and serve her second affirmation.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the 3rd Defendant that the second affirmation discloses a new line of defence to the Plaintiff’s claim. In that new affirmation, the 3rd defendant refers to (1) another set of proceedings in which she is sued by PC Financial Management VCC (“PC Financial”) under a mortgage which she previously executed in favour of the Plaintiff on 21 July 2020 (“2020 Mortgage”), and (2) some documents purportedly showing that the 2020 Mortgage had been transferred by the Plaintiff to PC Financial. The 3rd Defendant contends that the Plaintiff’s rights to all sums advanced by the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant have been transferred to PC Financial, and that the Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to seek any relief against her in these proceedings.
4. It is common ground between the parties that the 3rd Defendant’s application for leave to file her second affirmation is not made in the context of an interlocutory application, and that the following principles set out by Bharwaney J in Parsad v Great Wealthy Engineering Co Ltd [2012] 3 HKLRD 705 at [6] are applicable in this appeal:
“Whilst the primary aim is to secure the just resolution of the dispute in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties, and which must include the right of a party to rely on admissible, relevant and probative factual evidence, the Court must also have regard to other relevant circumstances, such as the potential disruption to the trial, the prejudice to the other parties, and the explanation offered by the applicant for the late application. These matters have to be considered and weighed in the light of and against the underlying objectives of Civil Justice Reform to ensure cost effectiveness and economy, expedition, proportionality, and fairness between the parties.”
5. The Plaintiff submits that the 3rd Defendant’s indebtedness under the loan agreement dated 24 August 2021 could not have been transferred to PC Financial, and there is therefore no utility for the 3rd Defendant to rely on her second affirmation. On the other hand, the 3rd Defendant submits that the 2020 Mortgage is an “all moneys” charge and that the secured indebtedness under it would cover the indebtedness which the Plaintiff now seeks to claim against the 3rd Defendant. Having looked at the terms of the 2020 Mortgage, I am unable to say at this stage that the matter is as definitive as that contended for by the Plaintiff. It is inappropriate for me to express further views on the construction of the 2020 Mortgage, as that is a matter for consideration at the substantive hearing of the Originating Summons.
6. Turning to the question of lateness, there is no doubt that the 3rd Defendant sought to file and serve the second affirmation very late. The application for leave was heard before the Master less than 3 weeks before the substantive hearing. If leave had been granted, the Plaintiff would have had to prepare an affirmation in reply and that would have caused undesirable disruption to the Plaintiff’s preparation of the substantive hearing. I understand this was a major reason why the Master refused to grant leave to the 3rd Defendant on 23 October 2025.
7. Shortly before the scheduled substantive hearing, the 3rd Defendant applied for an adjournment of the hearing pending the determination of the present appeal. On 12 November 2025, a Master directed a further call-over hearing to be held on a date not before 14 April 2026. As a result, the 3rd Defendant managed to have the substantive hearing of the Originating Summons adjourned. The further call-over hearing has not yet been fixed. Accordingly, as things presently stand, if the 3rd Defendant were given leave to file and serve her second affirmation, the Plaintiff would have sufficient time to prepare an affirmation in reply and to prepare for the substantive hearing in due course. Any prejudice which may be caused as a result of the filing of the 3rd Defendant’s second affirmation would therefore have been kept to a minimum. The Plaintiff has indicated that it will need 28 days to prepare its affirmation in reply.
8. As far as the reasons for the delay are concerned, the 3rd Defendant has managed to give some explanations. She says that time was taken by her when she asked for documents from PC Financial and sought legal advice. Although these are not particularly cogent reasons, I do not consider the 3rd Defendant’s delay as inexplicable. Moreover, there is insufficient basis for the Plaintiff to suggest that the 3rd Defendant deliberately chose to apply to adduce further evidence shortly before the substantive hearing on 13 November 2025 in order to derail the proceedings.
9. Balancing all of these matters, I consider I should exercise my discretion to give leave to the 3rd Defendant to file and serve her second affirmation so as to secure the just resolution of the dispute between the parties. I should add that if the substantive hearing had not been adjourned in November 2025, I might very well have come to the same conclusion as that of the learned Master.
10. For these reasons, I allow the 3rd Defendant’s appeal. I also give leave to the Plaintiff to file an affirmation in reply to the 3rd Defendant’s second affirmation within 28 days.
11. I will now hear the parties on costs.
[Submissions on costs]
12. I make an order that the costs of the Notice of Appeal are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant, to be summarily assessed. I also make an order that the Plaintiff’s costs of preparing an affirmation in reply are to be borne by the 3rd Defendant. Further, I decline to disturb the costs order made by the Master.
[Submissions on summary assessment]
13. Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the 3rd Defendant’s costs at HK$125,000.
|
(Eugene Fung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Thomas Nip, instructed by Kitty So & Tong, for the Plaintiff
Mr Kenneth C.L. Chan and Mr Joshua Choy, instructed by Kelvin Cheung & Co., for the 3rd Defendant
|