5 Oct 2005
Because the plaintiff had acquired legal title and maintained uninterrupted possession of the lots and the mortgagees had neither been in possession nor taken enforcement action, the mortgages were held to be incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance, and a declaration was made to that effect.
5 Oct 2005
On the undisputed facts the plaintiff was the registered owner in continuous possession since acquisition and the mortgagees had not possessed the lots nor taken enforcement action; applying the Limitation Ordinance and the cited authorities, the court declared that each registered mortgage was incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable and granted declarations accordingly.
22 Feb 2000
The mortgage dated 12 February 1935 is incapable of subsistence or unenforceable because the plaintiff, the registered owner since 1954, demonstrated uninterrupted occupation and absence of demand, payment or acknowledgment for approximately 45 years, such that enforcement is barred by the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347.
3 Jun 1999
Because the property had been in uninterrupted possession of the family for over 80 years and there was no knowledge of the alleged mortgage except its endorsement on the Block Government Lease, the mortgage was time-barred and unenforceable by virtue of the Limitation Ordinance; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to an order in the terms used in Fung Kam Cheung.