Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equity of redemption

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2025

CCMD OVERSEAS LTD v. SINOM INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 678
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV285/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to establish any triable issue that the plaintiff acted for an improper purpose or in bad faith; the evidence (including the Status Report, registration of shares, marketing efforts by receivers and the plaintiff's conduct) was either explicable as legitimate attempts to secure repayment or insufficiently probative to meet the high threshold for inferring predominant or improper purpose.
14 Jan 2025

ZS CAPITAL FUND SPC AND OTHERS v. ASTOR ASSET MANAGEMENT 3 LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2020

The court refused leave to appeal because D1's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the pleadings and SLAs, properly construed, supported plaintiffs' claim of an equity of redemption over the entire Deposited Shares and D1 advanced no arguable legal basis to forfeit uncollateralised shares; consequently the stay application failed and there was no sufficient basis to order immediate taxation/payment of costs.
27 Aug 2024

ZS CAPITAL FUND SPC AND OTHERS v. ASTOR ASSET MANAGEMENT 3 LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2020

Plaintiffs established a strong prima facie right to redeem the deposited shares and defendant had no arguable defence to defeat the equity of redemption; although defendant has an arguable case that the Proviso might be applied, that does not negate plaintiffs' entitlement to interim relief; after deducting loan proceeds, interest and agreed costs the court ordered interim payment of HK$115,300,000 and release of the proceeds in court to plaintiffs.
20 Oct 2022

TUENBO CO LTD v. CHEUNG SUNG LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2019

DHCJ Au‑Yeung held that the Authority Issue in HCA 566/2019 had been finally determined by DHCJ Stock SC on the strike-out summons and it would be an abuse of process to re‑open that issue; accordingly the Court refused to order a preliminary issue or consolidation, but ordered a stay of HCA 566/2019 pending resolution of HCA 2095/2016, with findings in HCA 2095/2016 to bind HCA 566/2019 and liberty to apply.
26 Mar 2021

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2020

The agreement, read as a whole, manifested a loan and security arrangement (promissory note obligations, interest provisions, pledge/Collateral Agency/Pledge Agreements, perfection and remedies on default); accordingly the equity of redemption applied and contractual provisions purporting to extinguish or waive the mortgagor's equitable right (eg clauses exempting lender from accounting for surplus/providing no right of redemption) were invalid as clogs; further, given the plaintiff's adoption of the Agreement and undertakings, the Court properly entertained the Order 14A issue; the Judge's d…
26 Mar 2021

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/2020

The Agreement was properly characterised as a loan secured by a security interest in the pledged shares; accordingly the equitable doctrine of the equity of redemption applied and contractual provisions purporting to waive or extinguish the mortgagor's right to surplus proceeds or to prevent redemption were clogs and invalid; the Order 14A determination was properly entertained given the plaintiff's adoption of the Agreement and undertakings, and the appeals were dismissed.
2 Mar 2021

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER v. NG SHUI CHING, IRENE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 220
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2018

Leave to the Court of Final Appeal refused because the questions advanced were essentially challenges to concurrent factual findings in a special factual context, lacked questions of great general or public importance in Hong Kong law, and the alternative points (pledge/equity of redemption) lacked factual basis and were not pleaded or tried so could not found leave.
9 Oct 2020

SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD 對李友德及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKDC 794
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3066/2016

The appellant failed to prove any equitable interest in the property (no common intention constructive trust or other proprietary interest). Consequently she had no right of redemption which could defeat the bank's registered mortgage. Even if she had any right, the equity of redemption vested in the trustee on the bankrupt's bankruptcy and the trustee must protect creditors' interests; the appellant produced no evidence of ability to effect a lump sum redemption of the property and therefore her appeal must be dismissed.
14 Aug 2020

SILVER UNIVERSE INVESTMENTS LTD v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1824/2018

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate on the material before the court that it would obtain judgment for substantial damages or a substantial sum against either defendant at trial because (i) the occurrence of an event of default and defendants' contractual rights to the shares and proceeds are at least arguable, (ii) plaintiff has not shown readiness, willingness and ability to repay the loan so as to trigger any obligation on D2 to return identical shares, and (iii) there are viable defences including the 'equivalent number' contractual point and the potential exercise of discretion under MLO s.2…
12 Mar 2020

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 376
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA365/2018

The Adam Loan Agreement and Collateral Agency Agreement, read as a whole, constituted a secured loan with the plaintiff retaining beneficial ownership and an equity of redemption; clauses purporting to waive or extinguish that equity (including provisions purporting to deny redemption or to allow retention of entire proceeds without obligation) are unlawful clogs and void; the legal question of construction was suitable for determination under Order 14A despite other factual disputes because the facts necessary to decide the legal issue were before the court.