Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal charge/mortgage

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

CC CREDIT SERVICES LTD v. LOK KA YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2528
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1773/2024

Because the 1st Defendant failed to repay within the extended period and partition is impracticable, and the opposing co‑owner did not demonstrate very great hardship, the Plaintiff as legal chargee of a partial interest is entitled to an order for sale; the sale is ordered subject to safeguards including conduct by the Plaintiff's solicitors and a court‑set reserve price; no costs against the 2nd Defendant.
12 Jul 2023

EGO FINANCE LTD v. CHEUNG LAM FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 948
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3072/2022

Plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the 1st defendant and guarantor (3rd) for the outstanding sums; plaintiff, as a person interested under the Partition Ordinance and having complied with O.83A/O.88 and the MLO, has standing to seek sale; partition is impracticable and sale is objectively beneficial, so the court exercised its discretion to order possession and sale of the Property with a specified reserve and distribution scheme; costs awarded to plaintiff on a full indemnity basis.
8 Nov 2019

RE SOETRISNO FARIDA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3278/2018

Debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute: the non est factum plea failed because the instrument's character matched what she believed she was signing, she alleged no disability and had prior experience signing all‑monies charges; undue influence failed because there was no evidence she was victimised or misled, her prior conduct and surrender of the property indicated informed consent and no unconscionable conduct by others; therefore the petition succeeds and a bankruptcy order (nisi) is warranted.
31 Oct 2013

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG KAM HO AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG KAM HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3324/2002

On the facts the 4th defendant failed to prove undue influence; although the bank was put on inquiry, the primary issue disposed the claim — absence of proven undue influence — therefore the Legal Charge was enforceable against the 4th defendant; the bank was entitled to contractual interest at 11.125% p.a. from 2 July 2002 to 5 December 2002 on the stated sum and judgment interest thereafter under s.49 HCO; the 4th defendant's counterclaim to rescind the charge is dismissed.
3 Feb 2010

WONG SUN KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG SUN KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2544/2009

The court found that on the evidence LBL was indebted to Winland as at the date of hearing and therefore the receivers had been properly appointed and possessed the necessary powers under the debenture to carry out the acts sought; accordingly the application by the receivers was granted and costs were ordered to be paid out of LBL's assets. The deed provision relied upon did not conclusively negate Winland's remaining claims.
10 Jul 2008

MANULIFE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v. OH CHAN SIU PING MARGARET

Citation

MANULIFE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v. OH CHAN SIU PING MARGARET
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16/2008

The defendant's allegations did not disclose any credible vitiating factors or raise real issues to be tried: the 2004 legal charge was valid, the representations alleged were consistent with Manulife's contractual rights under the charge and did not amount to misrepresentation or duress, and the 2006 settlement was not shown to be unconscionable or procured by undue influence; accordingly summary judgment was granted for possession, mesne profit assessment and contractual costs.
26 Jul 2006

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KIT CHOY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5172/2002

The court refused both applications because (1) in inter partes originating summons proceedings there is no absolute duty to disclose documents the plaintiff considers irrelevant, the Bank had acknowledged the documents and the defendant already possessed identical versions so no prejudice was shown, and forensic examination would not advance the defence; and (2) the proposed counterclaim alleging perjury was raised unreasonably late contrary to the requirement to raise counterclaims at the earliest opportunity (RHC Order 28 r 7(2)), therefore both applications were dismissed with costs and t…
27 May 2004

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS

Citation

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12924/1997

The Court found on credibility and documentary evidence that the guarantees and security documents were validly executed and that the Company had authorised a margin account and applied for/received the placing shares; accordingly the Bank was entitled to recover the sums claimed from the defendants and chargees; issue estoppel was disapplied because its application would be contrary to justice in the circumstances.
8 May 2002

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. WONG YUK PING CAROLINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. WONG YUK PING CAROLINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2017/1995

Defendant failed to prove undue influence or misrepresentation; she willingly and knowingly executed the legal charge and guarantee, the husband did not act as the bank's agent, the bank had no constructive notice and the defendant by subsequent conduct affirmed the deeds; therefore the legal charge and guarantee are enforceable and judgment is entered for the plaintiff.
30 Apr 2002

WING HANG BANK LTD. v. CRYSTAL JET INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

WING HANG BANK LTD. v. CRYSTAL JET INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5014/1999

The court found all security documents (the legal charge and both guarantees) valid and enforceable: ML Ko was not an agent of the Bank; defendants' non est factum, undue influence and duress arguments failed because they had opportunity to read and were put on enquiry, the threat to sue was lawful and forbearance provided consideration, and the 2nd guarantee did not discharge the 1st; accordingly judgment entered for the Bank and contractual costs awarded to the Bank against Crystal Jet and Ko Mee Wah.