Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Primecredit Ltd v Hon Wai Kan

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date03 August 2017
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberDCMP2179/2015
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
DCMP2179A/2015 PRIMECREDIT LTD v. HON WAI KAN

DCMP 2179/2015
DCCJ 2251/2011
(Heard together)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2179 OF 2015

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

IN THE MATTER of the District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Civil Action No 2251 of 2011

and

IN THE MATTER of the property known as ALL THOSE 35 equal undivided 103,758th parts or shares of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as THE REMAINING PORTION OF TUEN MUN TOWN LOT NO 441 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as KIN SANG ESTATE TOGETHER with the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT Flat 6, 24th Floor, Hong Sang House (including the planter /planterbox appertaining thereto, if any)(Block 5) Kin Sang Estate, No 3 Leung Wan Street, Tuen Mun, New Territories (“the Property”)

and

IN THE MATTER of a Charging Order Absolute dated 6th September 2011 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No 11090900260022 (“the Charging Order”)

and

IN THE MATTER of Order 50 Rule 9A and Order 88 Rule 5A of the Rules of the District Court

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

BETWEEN
PRIMECREDIT LIMITED Plaintiff
and
HON WAI KAN Defendant
HON YUEN WAN（韓遠雲） Intended Intervener

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2251 OF 2011

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

BETWEEN
PRIMECREDIT LIMITED Plaintiff
and
HON WAI KAN Defendant
HON YUEN WAN（韓遠雲） Intended Intervener

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

Before: His Honour Judge MK Liu in Chambers (Open to public)
Date of Hearing: 3 August 2017
Date of Decision: 3 August 2017

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

DECISION

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

1. The issues before me are the costs of the application made in the plaintiff’s solicitors’ letter dated 22 May 2017 (“the plaintiff’s application”) and the costs of the joint application as set out in the intended intervener’s solicitors’ letter dated 17 July 2017 (“the joint application”).

Background

2. The aforesaid 2 applications stem from the decision made by DDJ S H Lee in the hearing on 6 January 2017. Reasons for the decision have been handed down by the deputy judge on 11 January 2017 (“the Reasons”). The decision made by the deputy judge, as well as the background and the reasons for the decision, have been clearly set out in the Reasons and I shall not repeat the same herein. For ease of reference, unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations used in the Reasons are adopted in this decision.

3. After the hearing before the deputy judge, the intended intervener made the following attempts to try to find out the whereabouts of the defendant:-

(a) In January 2017, the intended intervener checked with her sister living in Hong Kong to see whether she had the means of contacting the defendant. Her sister had no idea as to where the defendant currently lived, and could only give the intended intervener an address which was the defendant’s last known address.

(b) In February, the intended intervener went to that address twice but could not find the defendant.

(c) In February, the intended intervener went to the Mainland to visit her mother to try to find out the means to contact the defendant. However, the mother told the intended intervener that she had no contact with the defendant for a long time and could not help the intended intervener.

(d) Also in February, the intended intervener visited her another sister who was living in the Mainland. That sister also did not know the whereabouts of the defendant.

(e) In March, the intended intervener tried to contact the defendant’s wife by dialing her mobile number. The intended intervener managed to reach the defendant’s wife but was told that the defendant had already separated with the wife, and the defendant’s business was none of the wife’s business.

(f) From 20 March onwards, the intended intervener tried to contact the defendant by calling his mobile number but at no avail until 28 March 2017. On 28 March 2017, the intended intervener managed to reach the defendant over the phone but the defendant refused to reveal his current address.

(g) On 31 March, the intended intervener in her solicitors’ office gave a call to the defendant. The defendant did not pick up the call from the intended intervener’s mobile phone. When the intended intervener used another phone to call the defendant, the defendant picked up the call. The intended intervener told the defendant that some documents had to be served on him and asked him to attend the intended intervener’s solicitors’ office to pick up the documents. The defendant refused and asked the intended intervener not to call him again.

(h) The intended intervener called the defendant’s wife again, but was again informed that the wife did not know the whereabouts of the defendant.

4. On 5 April 2017, the intended intervener took out ex parte applications for substituted service in DCCJ 2251/2011 and DCMP 2179/2015.

5. From 13 March 2017 onwards, there was correspondence passing between the plaintiff’s solicitors and the intended intervener’s solicitors concerning the service of the necessary documents (“the documents”) identified in the Reasons.

6. On 22 May 2017, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the court and said:-

“We note that more than 4 months have passed but the Intended Intervener still has not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT