Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of registered interests

Legal area

Court

22 Mar 2022

SOUTH-CHINA UNIVERSAL FINANCE LTD v, TSANG KOON SAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 258
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1630/2019

The court rejected Mr Lau's oral account, found no credible evidence of the alleged Agreement or payment, held occupation began with Tsang's consent (a licence) not adverse possession, and concluded there was no equitable interest (estoppel, resulting or constructive trust) in Lau; therefore South-China's registered legal charge was enforceable and judgment for enforcement and vacant possession was granted against Lau.
14 Nov 2016

FORTUNE GAIN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FORTUNE GAIN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1849/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the Decision identified triable factual issues of alleged fraud and sham transactions which could not be properly resolved at interlocutory stage; MUL's pleadings raised sufficient factual and mixed fact-and-law issues (including alter ego and recent acquisitions) necessitating trial rather than appellate intervention; absence of amendment to the framed question of law did not materially affect outcome; no sufficient legal point of general importance was shown to justify leave.
19 Aug 2016

CHU YIN FAN v. INTER RIVERS LTD

Citation

CHU YIN FAN v. INTER RIVERS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4314/2012

On the affidavit material the court concluded that it was arguable there was no real risk that the missing original Assignment would give rise to a successful prior encumbrance; under De Monsa missing documents alone do not entitle a purchaser to refuse completion absent real risk; the defendant raised triable factual issues (including best endeavours to obtain finance and causation of bank refusal) and therefore had an arguable defence — summary judgment was inappropriate and defendant was given unconditional leave to defend.
20 Aug 2013

LAM JOSEPH CHAK LUN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YING HA

Citation

LAM JOSEPH CHAK LUN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YING HA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP664/2013

Read together Supplemental Agreements 2 and 3 constitute an express valid nomination of the defendant by Li Chi Fai; the Confirmation Letter and Li's affirmation suffice to show he has no interest and need not be stamped because it is not an instrument chargeable under the Stamp Duty Ordinance; the earlier stated sum was abandoned by operation of the cancellation in Supplemental Agreement 2 and there is no evidential basis for any resulting trust or third‑party interest; accordingly the defendant has satisfactorily answered the requisitions and has proved and given good title.
15 Nov 2012

SILVER HOPE LTD v. CHAN KWAI WAH ALICE

Citation

SILVER HOPE LTD v. CHAN KWAI WAH ALICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP82/2012

Registrar held the intended defendant had demonstrated an arguable proprietary/equitable interest in parts of the ground floor sufficient to be joined as a defendant under O.15 r.6; the charging order and writ of possession were not set aside but execution was stayed pending determination of the competing claims; costs of the application were ordered against the intended defendant to be summarily assessed with procedure and time limits specified.
2 Jul 2010

STATE CHINA FINANCE LTD v. LEUNG MAN WAI

Citation

STATE CHINA FINANCE LTD v. LEUNG MAN WAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1985/2009

The court found that the applicants raised serious questions to be tried on clog of the equity of redemption and on the existence of a resulting trust in favour of Sin; damages would not be an adequate remedy for the applicants and the balance of convenience, together with practical considerations about purchaser's title and ensuing litigation, justified granting interlocutory relief subject to conditions (undertaking as to damages and payment of HK$457,000 into court).
21 Jan 2004

NANYANG FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK WING

Citation

NANYANG FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2003

A registered Form 8 asserting a proprietary claim can render a vendors title commercially defective for the purposes of a sale by a mortgagee even if the mortgage predates the Form 8; absent steps by the vendor to vacate the registration, sell subject to the notice or provide an indemnity, the purchaser is entitled to require proof of good title and may refuse completion and recover the deposit. The appeal was dismissed on that basis.
8 Nov 2000

LAM SAU WAH v. TAM CHI HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM SAU WAH v. TAM CHI HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3135/2000

The Notice of Appeal constituted a lis pendens and remained a blot on the register; although the vendor likely had priority and could in principle resist any claim, the existence of the registered Notice meant the purchasers would in practice be required to initiate proceedings to remove the blot, and under the contractual warranties (clauses 5, 23 and 33) the purchasers were entitled to rescind. Accordingly the vendor had not demonstrated that he could convey a good title and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.
26 Jun 1998

MEGALINK HOLDINGS LTD. v. WHOLE FORTUNE CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

MEGALINK HOLDINGS LTD. v. WHOLE FORTUNE CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4482/1997

The Court held that the 2nd Claimant acquired a substantial beneficial (equitable) interest under the registered Agreement for Sale and Purchase executed before the Charging Order; that equitable interest ranked prior to the 1st Claimant's subsequently registered Charging Order; there was insufficient evidence that the transaction was a sham or loan; accordingly the 2nd Claimant was entitled to the surplus proceeds of sale ($317,673.97).
12 Nov 1996

CHAN WING MUN ANITA v. FORTUNE SPEED LTD.

Citation

CHAN WING MUN ANITA v. FORTUNE SPEED LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2919/1996

The Loan Agreement, as drafted, raised a real possibility that VML provided the purchase money and thus that a resulting trust in VML's favour might have arisen; however the Loan Agreement was not signed by Besteco (the legal purchaser) or its authorised agent and therefore did not constitute a written, registrable instrument binding Besteco or amounting to a sufficiently expressed declaration of trust. Resulting trusts are recognised by s.5(2) CPO and need not be in writing or registrable under the Land Registration Ordinance; accordingly non-registration of the Loan Agreement did not exting…