Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgagee's power of sale

Legal area

Court

27 May 2008

ACESITE LTD AND OTHERS v. BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC AND ANOTHER

Citation

ACESITE LTD AND OTHERS v. BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL5/2006

The application to strike out was dismissed and leave to amend granted because the challenged claims raise fact-sensitive and mixed law issues that are not plainly unsustainable or demurrable on their face; summary disposal would be inappropriate and these matters must be decided at trial with full evidence.
21 Sept 2006

GOLDLION PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. REGENT NATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

GOLDLION PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. REGENT NATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5273/2003

The summons for interim receivers and the interlocutory injunction were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show that damages would be inadequate or that there was a real risk of disposal of the property before trial; RZB had no present intention to sell and insisted security would only be released on payment in full; receivership was disproportionate and unnecessary.
25 Jul 2006

FARICHO INVESTMENT LTD v. GOOD TIME FINANCE LTD

Citation

FARICHO INVESTMENT LTD v. GOOD TIME FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2496/2005

The express provisions of the Legal Charge relied on by the mortgagee cannot override the mortgagor's equity of redemption; the mortgagee's entering into sale and purchase agreements after an 11-day default (corrected by payment), while failing to provide a proper breakdown of the redemption sum and acting clandestinely, constituted a fetter on the equity of redemption and entitled the mortgagor to the declaratory relief and injunctions sought.
15 Nov 1978

WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM

Citation

WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2102/1966

The court refused the late application to add particulars of collusion, bad faith and fraud because the proposed particulars were unnecessary to correct past pleading errors and would confuse the real issues; moreover imputations of fraudulent intention cannot be permitted at this stage without the most cogent particulars or evidence. Lateness was considered but not decisive.

Hong Kong Case Law

ACESITE LTD AND OTHERS v. BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC AND ANOTHER

GOLDLION PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. REGENT NATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD

FARICHO INVESTMENT LTD v. GOOD TIME FINANCE LTD

WONG CHIT SEN v. TSE KWONG LAM