零在金融香港有限公司 對 賴敏 (also known as 赖敏)及另一人

DCMP 1148/2022

[2025] HKDC 72

香港特別行政區

區域法院

雜項案件2022年第1148號

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

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

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

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

判決書

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

A. 簡介

1   原告人是一間根據香港法例第163章《放債人條例》獲發放債人牌照的公司。第一及第二被告人為新界青衣楓樹窩路1號翠怡花園9座23樓A室（「該物業」）的註冊業主。

2  於2022年4月14日，原告人依賴其與第一被告人簽訂的日期為2021年3月12日的貸款合約及2021年3月12日的協議備忘錄（統稱「該合約」），以及就該物業所簽訂的土地註冊處登記號碼2003310870094日期為2020年3月27日之按揭（「該按揭」），以原訴傳票方式向第一及第二被告人作出申索，並依據香港法例第352章《分劃條例》要求法庭作出售樓命令。

3  原訴傳票的實質聆訊於2023年4月24日於本席前進行。由始至終，第一及第二被告人均沒有存檔送達認收書（acknowledgement of service）或任何反對誓章（affirmation in opposition），亦沒有出席聆訊。於2023年7月11日，本席頒下判決書（「該判決」），裁定原告人勝訴及頒出包括付款判決（money judgment）及售樓命令（order for sale）在內的一系列命令。

4  於2024年2月16日，第一被告人以傳票的方式申請逾期上訴許可（「第一被告人的上訴許可傳票」），並於同日以傳票的方式申請暫緩執行判令（「第一被告人的暫緩傳票」）。

5  於2024年9月19日，聆案官余思賢駁回了第一被告人的暫緩傳票。至於第一被告人的上訴許可傳票，代表原告人的陳濟洲大律師告知本席，有關的傳票尚待處理。

6  於2024年10月31日，第二被告人就該判決存檔了逾時的上訴許可傳票申請（「第二被告人的上訴許可傳票」），並夾附日期為2024年10月31日的誓章。就第二被告人的上訴許可傳票，法庭於2024年12月6日作出指示，包括傳票的實質聆訊將於2024年12月20日上午10時正由本席處理。

7  於2024年11月29日，第二被告人以傳票的方式申請暫緩執行判令（「第二被告人的暫緩傳票」），並夾附日期為2024年11月29日的誓章。就第二被告人的暫緩傳票，法庭於2024年12月4日作出包括以下的指示：

7.1 原告人可於2024年12月18日或之前存檔反對誓章；及

7.2 第二被告人的暫緩傳票將於2024年12月20日上午10時正處理以作進一步指示（亦即是說，第二被告人的暫緩傳票聆訊與第二被告人的上訴許可傳票的實質聆訊同時進行）。

8  原告人根據法庭的上述指示，於2024年12月17日存檔了有關反對誓章。

9  因此，本聆訊是處理：

9.1 第二被告人的上訴許可傳票的實質聆訊；及

9.2 第二被告人的暫緩傳票的指示聆訊。

10  第二被告人出席了本聆訊，但他表示沒有收到原告人所準備的聆訊文件夾及陳詞。根據原告人關於送達文件的誓章，有關的文件已經被送達至該物業的地址。本席在查詢後獲原告人告知，第二被告人於其上述傳票提供了該物業的地址作為送達地址，因此原告人作出了相關的送達。由於第二被告人已遷出了該物業，加上其沒有法律代表，為了公平起見，本席向第二被告人表示願意給他時間閱讀有關的聆訊文件夾及陳詞，並詢問他需要多少時間作出閱讀。可是，經過本席反覆的查詢，第二被告人仍然堅持不需要閱讀有關的文件。因此，本席容許聆訊進行。

11  另一方面，雖然第二被告人的暫緩傳票於本聆訊時僅列作處理以作進一步指示，但由於文件已準備就緒，而且對第二被告人來說，此申請也有迫切性，本席認為將第二被告人的暫緩傳票於本聆訊時一起實質處理是適當的。

B. 第二被告人的上訴許可傳票

12  於聆訊時，第二被告人依賴了以下論點：

12.1 該物業由第二被告人「獨資購買」，他在2009年共給第一被告人人民幣1,700,000元，第一被告人則沒有出錢。第一被告人並非房主，只有居住權；及及

12.2 第一被告人與原告人的按揭事宜從來沒有通知第二被告人，也沒有經過第二被告人的同意。

13  陳大律師於聆訊時表示，原告人並不會倚賴任何第二被告人的延誤反對有關的申請，原告人的反對理由是有關上訴沒有合理機會得直。

14  首先，原告人指出，第二被告人作為指稱該物業的實益權益有別於法定權益的一方，肩負舉證責任：Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry and anor[1]。若一方要證明自己出資購買物業，他需要提供能清晰顯示供款來自自己的文件：Chan Chui Mee v Mak Chi Choi[2]。在本案中，第二被告人只是單單聲稱（barely asserted）自己出資購買該物業，並沒有提出任何文件證據佐證，因此不足以履行其舉證責任：Guangdong Finance Ltd(廣東信貸有限公司) 訴 Wong Wai Hing(黃偉興)及另一人[3]。無論如何，即使第二被告人真的是該物業的唯一實益擁有人（原告人對此極力否認），第二被告人還須證明原告人並非「真誠及不知悉其實益權益的承按人」（bona fide purchaser for value without notice）: 何國標 對 田紅霞及另一人[4]。因第二被告人沒有在這方面提出任何證據，此論點是不可能成功的。

15  另一方面，就着第二被告人指出第一被告人與原告人訂立該按揭時未經第二被告人同意，故第二被告人不用就該按揭負責的論點，原告人指出於該按揭中，第一被告人所按押的是其所擁有的該物業的「half part or share」，並不牽涉第二被告人的權益，故根本不需要第二被告人的同意或負責。值得留意的是因第一及第二被告人原以聯權共有方式持有該物業（joint tenancy），當其中一方按押自己的權益，共有的方式將會由聯權共有分割（severed）為分權共有（tenancy in common）：Guangdong Finance[5]；何國標[6]。正正就是因為原告人只是該物業的一半權益的承按人（mortgagee），但就出售該物業未有得到另一共有人（即第二被告人）的同意，故需按照《分劃條例》申請售樓命令。

16  本席同意原告人上述的論點，因此裁定第二被告人沒有任何具爭辯性的上訴理據，有關的上訴申請被駁回。

C. 第二被告人的暫緩傳票

17  於聆訊時，第二被告人除了倚賴其上述的論點外，還補充了指該物業用於兒子上學居住。

18  根據Gain East Investments Ltd v Chan Po Wing[7] （該案引用了Star Play Development Ltd v Bess Fashion Management Co Ltd[8] [P#8]），上訴時要求暫緩執行命令的相關法律原則如下：

18.1 討論這議題的起始點，是勝訴一方不應被剝奪訴訟的成果，而勝訴一方在暫緩執行命令發出後會蒙受甚麼不利這點，通常也會是一項相關的考慮；

18.2 雖然法庭在進行暫緩執行申請聆訊時，不適合太深入地考慮上訴理據的勝算，但亦須就此作初步評估；

18.3 倘若法庭認為申請方有很大機會上訴得直，這本身已足以構成發出暫緩執行令的良好理由；

18.4 不過，如果申請方所提出的上訴理由僅具合理得直的機會而不是強而有力，他便必須提出其他額外原因，闡明為何法院應暫緩執行判令。其中一種常見的理由，是倘若不發出暫緩執行令，即使上訴一方最終能上訴得直，結果也是徒然；

18.5 申請暫緩執行法庭命令的一方，最低限度亦需要說服法庭，他有可爭辯性的上訴理據（即是說有合理機會上訴得直），法庭才會考慮同意發出暫緩執行令。即使情況有多特別，倘若案件本身並沒有可爭辯性的上訴理據，法庭亦不會發出暫緩執行令。

19  如上所述，本席認為第二被告人的上訴沒有合理機會得直。

20  另一方面，本席亦同意原告人指出暫緩執行會令原告人蒙受不利，因為根據原告人存檔的蘇志誠於2024年5月9日的第一份誓章，樓價有下跌的趨勢，暫緩執行判令將可能使原告人須以較低價錢出售該物業，使原告人蒙受損失，尤其是：

20.1 根據Centaline Surveyors的估價報告的第18段，於2022年6月時，該物業的市值為港幣5,200,000元。第一被告人於該物業的一半權益的價值（港幣2,600,000元），其實已經不足以清還第一被告人直至2024年5月9日的欠款以及利息（港幣3,293,890.28元）；

20.2 根據蘇志誠於2024年12月16日的第三份誓章第31段，第一被告人直至2024年5月9日的所欠原告人的款項及利息已達港幣3,491,342.73元；及

20.3 如果該物業的價錢再下跌的話，原告人只能收回更少款項，甚至連本金（即約港幣2,580,000元）也無法全數收回。

21  而至於第二被告人提出他的兒子居住於該物業，本席亦同意原告人指出於售賣該物業後，第二被告人作為共有人可收取一半款項。如及時售賣物業，這些款項可用於為兒子租樓甚至買樓。相反，正正因為樓價有下跌的趨勢，暫緩執行反而可能會令出售該物業的價錢進一步降低，使第二被告人最終收取更少款項。

22  綜上所述，暫緩執行判令會使原告人蒙受不利。相反，第二被告人未能提出任何暫緩執行判令的充分原因。因此，有關的暫緩執行申請亦被駁回。

D. 命令

23  第二被告人的兩項申請被駁回。第二被告人須要支付原告人訟費，訟費以彌償基準計算。

24  本席感謝陳大律師的協助，但本席留意到第二被告人的兩項申請牽涉的議題及論點並不複雜，因此就着本次聆訊不會批出大律師證書。

E. 後記

25  為了確保第二被告人在未來能夠有效收到原告人所送達的文件，雙方同意，除了依法定的方式送達外，原告人還需將相關文件以WhatsApp訊息形式，發送至一個由第二被告人於聆訊時提供的（及似乎屬於第一被告人的）號碼。本席作出了有關的命令。

26  另一方面，第一被告人亦出席了本次聆訊。基於相同原因，經雙方同意，對於未來對第一被告人的文件送達安排，本席亦作出了與上述相同的命令。

原告人：由盧王徐律師事務所延聘陳濟洲大律師和鄧凱仁大律師代表

第二被告人：無律師代表，並親自應訊

DCMP 1148/2022

[2023] HKDC 757

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1148 OF 2022

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

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

A. Introduction

1.  This is the application by the plaintiff (“P”), a licensed money lender under the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap 163) (“MLO”), for, inter alia, a money judgment, together with an order for possession and an order for sale of the property known as Flat A, 23^rd floor, Tower 9 Greenfield Garden（翠怡花園）(“Property”). The 1^st and 2^nd defendants (“D1” and “D2” respectively, collectively “Ds”) are the registered owners of the Property. According to a surveyors’ report dated 7 July 2022, the Property’s value for sale under repossession was in the order of HK$5,200,000.

2.  P as the lender and D1 as the borrower entered into a written loan agreement titled “The Loan Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement (Property Loan)” dated 12 March 2021 (“Loan Agreement”) for the principal sum of HK$2,500,000 (“Loan”). The loan was secured by a mortgage dated 27 March 2020 executed by D1 (“Mortgage”).

3.  On 31 March 2020, the Mortgage was registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No 20033101870094.

4.  On 2 August 2021, Konew Capital International Limited (“Konew”) registered a Second Mortgage against D1’s half share of and in the Property.

5.  Since 12 December 2021, D1 has failed and/or refused to make any repayment of the Loan. P therefore commenced the present proceedings on 14 April 2022.

6.  On 23 June 2022, D1, as debtor, petitioned for her own bankruptcy. On 20 September 2022, a bankruptcy order was made against D1 and the Official Receiver has become the provisional trustee of the estate of D1. On 8 December 2022, Mr Fred Lee and Ms Chow Wai Lan Christine were appointed joint and several trustees of the property of D1 (“Trustees”).

7.  On 24 November 2022, upon the joint application of P and the Official Receiver, High Court Master D To made an Order in HCB 3415/2022 (D1’s bankruptcy proceedings), granting leave to P to proceed with the present case subject to, inter alia, the following conditions:-

(a)  No judgment or order obtained by [P] in DCMP No 1148 of 2022 (other than judgment or order for sale of the Property) shall be enforced against [D1] without leave of the court; and

(b)  [P] shall not apply for any order for costs personally against the Official Receiver or the trustee in bankruptcy in these proceedings.

8.  Ds had not filed any Acknowledgement of Service or any affirmation in opposition. Ds and the Trustees were absent at the hearing. Satisfied with the affirmation of service, I allowed the hearing to proceed.

B. The Loan Agreement

9.  The Loan Agreement provides, inter alia, that:-

(1)  P would lend D1 a loan of HK$2,500,000 at the interest rate of 13% per annum.

(2)  D1’s interest of and in the Property is to be charged as security by way of a mortgage in favour of P, to secure payment of all the sums payable under the Loan Agreement.

(3)  If default is made in the payment upon the due date of any sum payable to P under the Loan Agreement, whether in respect of principal or interest, P shall be entitled to charge default interest rate of 13% per annum.

(4)  D1 should indemnity and keep indemnified P in full against all reasonable costs and expenses (including but not limited to legal costs on a full indemnity basis) incurred or to be incurred by it in connection with the enforcement of, or the preservation of any rights under the Loan Agreement.

C. The Mortgage

10.  The Mortgage provides, inter alia, that:-

(1)  D1 covenants with P that D1 will pay the “Secured Indebtedness” (defined therein, including the Loan) in the manner and at the times herein provided for payment thereof.

(2)  It shall be an event of default if, inter alia, D1 fails to pay any principal, interest or any other sum payable under the Mortgage on the date on which the same is due and payable.

(3)  Upon the occurrence of any event of default, P may by notice in writing to D1 declare that the Loan and all interest and other sums payable under the Mortgage and/or the Secured Indebtedness have become immediately due and payable, whereupon the same shall become immediately due and payable.

(4)  If the Secured Indebtedness has not been paid or paid in full pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage, the security thereby constituted and the Mortgage shall become enforceable as against D1.

(5)  At any time after the security thereby constituted has become enforceable, it shall be lawful for the Plaintiff and any person appointed by it without any consent on the part of D1 or of any person to, inter alia, do any of the followings:-

(a)  enter upon and take possession of the Property or any part thereof and for that purpose to take any legal proceedings, hold and enjoy the Property or any part thereof and take the income and profits thereof;

(b)  exercise any powers or rights incidental to the ownership of the Property or any part thereof;

(c)  do all things necessary or desirable for realising the Property or any part thereof;

(d)  sell, assign, call in, collect and convert into money the Property or any part thereof or any interest therein free from the Mortgage and any other estates, interests and rights to which the Mortgage has priority and sell the Property or any part thereof or any interest therein either together or in parcels and either by public auction or public tender or by private contract or by private tender or a combination thereof.

(6)  All moneys received by P arising from any sale or other disposition under the powers in the Mortgage shall be held in trust and applied according to the order provided in clause 15.

D. The Outstanding Loan

11.  P now claims a total sum of HK$2,581,810.63 as at 4 March 2022, being the outstanding loan in the sum of HK$2,481,662.62 plus interest thereon with further interest accruing at HK$893.46 per day thereafter.

E. Money Judgment

12.  I am satisfied that P has complied with the provisions in the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap 163) (“MLO”).

(a)  Regarding s 18 of MLO:-

(i)  The Loan Agreement is the “note or memorandum” under section 18(1) of the MLO.

(ii)  Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 provided the name and address of P as required by section 18(2)(a) of the MLO.

(iii)  Schedule 5 provided the name and address of D1 as required by section 18(2)(b) of the MLO.

(iv)  There is no surety and hence section 18(2)(c) of the MLO does not apply.

(v)  The amount of the principal of the loan in both words and figures, as required by section 18(2)(d) of the MLO, is provided at Schedule 7 of the Loan Agreement.

(vi)  The date of the making of the agreement, as required by section 18(2)(e) of the MLO, is provided at Schedule 1 of the Loan Agreement.

(vii)  The date of the making of the loan, as required by section 18(2)(f) of the MLO, is stated at Schedule 8 of the Loan Agreement.

(viii)  The terms of repayment of the loan, as required by section 18(2)(g) of the MLO, is stated at, inter alia, Schedule 9 and the Repayment Schedule of the Loan Agreement.

(ix)  The form of security for the loan, as required by section 18(2)(h) of the MLO, is stated at Schedule 11 and Clause 25 of the Loan Agreement.

(x)  The rate of interest charged on the loan expressed as a rate per cent per annum, as required by section 18(2)(i) of the MLO, is stated at Clause 5 and Schedule 10 of the Loan Agreement.

(xi)  The declaration as to the place of negotiation and completion of the agreement for the loan, as required by section 18(2)(j) of the MLO, is also duly set out at Clauses 19, 32 and Schedule 3 of the Loan Agreement.

(b)  Regarding section 22 of MLO, no provision in the Loan Agreement or the Mortgage provides for the payment of compound interest, prohibiting the repayment of the loan by instalments and the rate or amount of interest being increased by reason of any default in the payment of sums due under the agreement.

(c)  Regarding section 23 of MLO, P is and was a money lender with proper licence.

(d)  Regarding sections 24 and 25 of MLO, the interest charged by P was 13% per annum.

(e)  Regarding section 27 of MLO, no provision in the Loan Agreement or the Mortgage provides for the payment by D1 to P of any sum for or on account of costs, charges or expenses (other than stamp duties or similar duties) incidental to or relating to the negotiations for or the granting of the loan.

13.  I am also satisfied that the Originating Summons was duly issued under Order 83A r3 and Order 88 r5(6) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H).

14.  In the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the money judgment against D1 as claimed.

F. Order for possession

15.  I am also satisfied that the requirements under Order 88 have all been complied with, namely:-

(1)  In compliance with Order 88 r5(2), true copy of the Mortgage was exhibited in the supporting affirmation filed on behalf of P, and the original of the same was provided to the court for examination at the hearing.

(2)  The required particulars were provided pursuant to Order 88 r5(2).

(3)  In compliance with Order 88 r5(4), P confirmed that to the best of P’s knowledge, D1 being the mortgagor of the Property was in possession and control of the Property.

16.  In these circumstances, P is entitled to an order for possession of the Property.

G. Order for sale

17.  Section 3(1) of the Partition Ordinance (Cap 352) (“PO”) provides as follows:

“Section 3 Institution of proceedings and parties thereto

(1) Where any property in land is held in the manner referred to in section 2, any person interested in such property may institute proceedings in the Court under this Ordinance by way of an action for partition or sale.”

18.  P, as a legal mortgagee, has acquired an interest in respect of the half share of the Property through the debt owed by D1 under the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage. P is therefore entitled to apply under the Partition Ordinance for sale of the entire Property.[1]

19.  In an application for an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance, the following propositions would be adopted by the court[2]:-

(a)  A co-owner has a 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;

(b)  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(s)) that such an order will not be beneficial to all the co-owners or that it would result in very great hardship to one co-owner; and

(c)  Whether an order for sale is beneficial to all the co-owners is not determined by the dissent of the opposing co-owners or the assertion by them that it is not beneficial. It has to be determined by the court objectively.

20.  I agree with Mr Vincent Chan, counsel for the plaintiff, that it is fair and just to grant an order for sale of the Property under section 6(1) of the Partition Ordinance in this case:-

(1)  Generally, in determining whether a sale is more beneficial than a partition, the court considers only the pecuniary results, disregarding matters of sentiment, and has regard to the interest of all parties interested as a whole; but it can and will order a sale where, in its discretion, it thinks fit, unless the parties opposing a sale undertake to purchase the shares of those desiring sale.[3]

(2)  In considering whether it is impracticable to make an order for partition, the court would consider the size and design of the property[4]. The Property is a self-contained domestic unit in a multi-storey building with a gross floor area of around 576 square feet, it is not practical to partition the Property and to do so will not be to the best interest of the owners of the Property. Even if it is possible, doing so may devalue the Property, and prejudice the defendant’s financial interests.

(3)  Further, there is no evidence from D1 or D2 suggesting that it is possible or desirable to physically partition the Property into two halves.

(4)  Since the burden is on the opposing co-owner to demonstrate to the court that such an order for sale would not be beneficial to all the co-owners or that it would result in very great hardship to one co-owner, by giving up his right to adduce evidence in this matter, D2 cannot complain about any hardship or that an injustice has been done to him.

(5)  On a side note, an order for sale would be particularly beneficial to D1. Upon sale of the Property, P would be able to apply the half of the sale proceeds representing D1’s share to discharge the debts owed to P. This would have the immediate advantage of stopping interest from further accruing.

(6)  Given the D1’s uncooperative attitude, P would not be able to recover (or recover fully) the outstanding sums without the court’s order. P would clearly suffer prejudice due to the late repayment of the outstanding sums, bearing in mind that the amount of loss and damage on P’s part will escalate if this matter is delayed further. It is possible that the sale proceeds from the Property may not be able to fully cover P’s loss and damage.

(7)  A reserve price would be set up by P by reference to property valuation expert’s opinion (ie HK$5,200,000 being the value for sale under repossession), the sale of the Property would be conducted on a fair and reasonable basis.

H. Costs

21.  By reason of clause 14 of the Loan Agreement, P is entitled to indemnity costs against D1 on a full indemnity basis.

I. Conclusion

22.  I therefore make the following orders:-

(1)  The plaintiff do recover against the 1^st defendant the sum of HK$2,581,810.63 together with interest on HK$2,481,662.62 at the rate of 13% per annum from 5 March 2022 (HK$893.46 per day) until full payment (“Judgment Sum”);

(2)  Unless the 1^st defendant do within 28 days after service of this Order make full payment of the Judgment Sum, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants do deliver to the plaintiff vacant possession and title deeds and documents in their possession (if any) of the Property;

(3)  Subject to delivery of vacant possession by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants as stated in paragraph (2) hereinabove, the Property be sold by the plaintiff by public auction or public tender or private contract or private tender with a reserve price of not less than HK$5,200,000;

(4)  The conduct of the sale of the Property shall be committed to plaintiff’s Solicitors, Messrs. Lo Wong & Tsui;

(5)  Any partner of Messrs Lo Wong & Tsui shall be given the authority, pursuant to sections 48 and 51 of the Trustees Ordinance, Cap 29 and section 38A of the District Court Ordinance, Cap 336, to execute the necessary agreement and/or assignment in connection with the sale on behalf of the defendants as the vendor, if the latter default in complying with the written demand to do so within 7 days;

(6)  The proceeds of sale of the Property be distributed in the following manner:-

(a)  to discharge of all government rent, taxes, rates and other outgoings due and affecting the Property.

(b)  to pay all reasonable costs and expenses including the legal costs and disbursements in relation to the sale of the Property.

(c)  50% of the proceeds relating to the 1^st defendant’s interest in the Property be applied:-

(i)  to discharge the Mortgage, the Judgment Sum and the costs of these proceedings under paragraph 9 below payable to the plaintiff by the 1^st defendant.

(ii)  the balance (if any) be paid to the next encumbrancer, Konew Capital International Limited.

(iii)  the surplus of the proceeds, if any, be paid to the joint and several Trustees of the property of the 1^st defendant.

(d)  50% of the balance of the proceeds relating to the 2^nd defendant’s interest in the Property be applied:-

(i)  to discharge all encumbrances affecting such 2^nd defendant’s interest in the Property, if any;

(ii)  the balance, if any, be paid to the 2^nd defendant or be paid into court should the plaintiff be unable to locate the 2^nd defendant upon reasonable efforts been made;

(7)  Upon the 1^st defendant paying to the plaintiff the money hereby ordered to be paid and all other moneys (if any) secured to the plaintiff by the Mortgage, the plaintiff (subject and without prejudice to the due exercise of any power of sale for the time being vested in it) do redeliver to the 1^st and 2^nd defendants possession and title deeds and documents of the Property and release to the 1^st defendant the security constituted by the Mortgage as the 1^st defendant may agree or the court may direct but without prejudice to the validity of any contract made prior to or without notice of such redemption and payment.

(8)  There be liberty to apply.

23.  I also make an order nisi that the 1^st defendant do pay the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings on a full indemnity basis to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel.

24.  I thank Mr Chan for his assistance.

Mr Vincent C C Chan, instructed by Lo, Wong & Tsui, for the plaintiff

The 1^st and 2^nd defendants were not represented and did not appear