Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable mortgage

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2021

CP GLOBAL INC. (receivers and managers appointed) AND ANOTHER v. GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2135
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1647/2020

There was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the debt; the exclusive jurisdiction clause does not, by itself, prevent the presentation or determination of a Hong Kong bankruptcy petition; the petition met s6B requirements as the petitioner gave an estimated value of the security; the Money Lenders Ordinance does not render the Credit Agreement unenforceable because the loan is an exempt secured loan; allegations of estoppel/waiver and the counterclaim were unsubstantiated and insufficient to defeat the petition; accordingly the court made the usual bankruptcy order against Guy…
27 Apr 2021

WINLAND FINANCE LTD v. GAIN HERO FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 576
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2019

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge: the WF Loan Agreement only assigned rights to future sale proceeds (not an interest in the land), delivery of title deeds did not create an equitable mortgage given the agreement's terms, and GH's Charging Order created a proprietary equitable charge over the land that took priority over WF's assignment of future proceeds; therefore WF's appeal failed.
10 Sept 2020

ZHENG RUOTING v. CHAN HOI TING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1764/2019

The statutory declaration and certified copies, viewed in context, suffice to show the vendor's title; defects alleged were either immaterial or fanciful and did not create a real risk of a successful adverse claim or mortgage against the purchaser, who is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly the application for declaration was dismissed.
16 Oct 2019

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

Extension of time refused because the 21‑day delay was attributable to the defendant's solicitors' failure to locate documents and there was no justification; alternatively, on the merits the Calderbank offer was not so clearly reasonable (it did not cover the full principal and was from one defendant only) that the plaintiff should have accepted it; application dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
17 May 2019

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

On the balance of probabilities the loan was advanced to D2 and D3 (not D1); the Plaintiff failed to prove creation of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds; the Plaintiff must return the title deeds to D1 as owner; the Legal Charge was voidable for solicitor's breach (abuse of confidence/material alteration) but rescission was refused on the facts; accordingly Plaintiff's claim against D1 is dismissed, D1's counterclaim for return of title deeds is allowed and D2/D3 counterclaim is dismissed.
21 Mar 2019

WINLAND FINANCE LTD v. GAIN HERO FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 771
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2671/2017

The Winland Agreement did not create an interest in land registrable under the LRO; at best it created an equitable assignment of future sale proceeds and the deposit of title deeds did not effect an immediate equitable mortgage inconsistent with the written terms; a Charging Order Absolute imposed a charge on the debtor's beneficial interest in the Property and therefore has priority over Winland's unregistrable equitable interest in future sale proceeds; accordingly Gain Hero's originating summons succeeds and Winland's counterclaim is dismissed.
30 Nov 2018

MILLION (FAR EAST) LTD v. MANLEY BEST (INTERNATIONAL) FOOD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2429/2017

The court confirmed the judgment order was a dismissal of the relevant summons and allocated costs according to that outcome: the Plaintiff is entitled to costs as against the 1st Defendant for the Plaintiff's application to the extent of its success against D1; the 2nd Defendant is entitled to costs of the Plaintiff's application where the Court ought to have granted leave to defend or dismissed that part affecting D2, with costs in the cause between P and D2 accordingly.
2 Oct 2018

MILLION (FAR EAST) LTD v. MANLEY BEST (INTERNATIONAL) FOOD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2193
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2429/2017

Summary judgment was appropriate and is entered for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant on the breach of agreement/Price Claim because the Defendants' Non-delivery and Mistake defences are shadowy and lack particulars; the Repayment Agreement is binding on signature; however the 2nd Defendant's repayment obligations under Clauses 2(b) and 2(c) are conditional on receipt of Share Sale Proceeds and because those proceeds were not received no summary judgment is entered against the 2nd Defendant on those clauses; issues as to whether delivery of title deeds constituted an equitable mortgage…
4 May 2018

SKY JOY INVESTMENT LTD v. ZHENG DUNMU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2017

Applying Ladd v Marshall the court held item 1 met condition 1 but failed condition 2 because genuineness of certificates does not affect validity or priority of the share charge; items 2 and 3 failed condition 1 (could have been obtained with reasonable diligence) and condition 2 (evidence inconsistent with contemporaneous loan/option documents and would not have important influence); accordingly all three items were refused and the summons dismissed; costs ordered against the appellant but indemnity costs and certificate for two counsel refused; reasonable costs assessed at $128,561.
1 Mar 2017

吳雪蓮 v. 洪永潤又名HONG YONGRUN（洪永润）及另二人

Citation

吳雪蓮 v. 洪永潤又名HONG YONGRUN（洪永润）及另二人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA621/2014

Given the direct conflict between the plaintiff's bare allegation and the 1st defendant's bare denial, the absence of contemporaneous documentary support and gaps in the plaintiff's evidence, the credibility issues can only be resolved at trial after cross-examination; accordingly the court must grant unconditional leave to the 1st defendant and order costs in the cause.