Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration of unenforceability

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

LEE HUNG CHEONG, THE ADMINSTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEE MING TIM, DECEASED v. WILLIAM TSOKSON

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 872
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP386/2022

The mortgage executed in 1961 created a right to receive the principal by 13 April 1962; under the Limitation Ordinance the pre‑1991 20‑year limitation period applied and expired in 1982; the mortgagee took no enforcement steps and cannot be located; therefore the mortgage is time‑barred, incapable of subsistence and unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance and the memorial should be vacated.
5 Oct 2005

TANG MUK HING v. MAN TSAU LIN

Citation

TANG MUK HING v. MAN TSAU LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP344/2005

Given the plaintiff's established title and continuous possession of the lots and the absence of any enforcement action by the mortgagees within the limitation period, the mortgages are incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable under the Limitation Ordinance; court follows relevant High Court precedents.
5 Oct 2005

TANG MUK HING v. TSANG MUK YAU

Citation

TANG MUK HING v. TSANG MUK YAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP343/2005

On the evidence the plaintiff had acquired and remained in possession of the lots and the mortgagees had not been in possession nor taken any enforcement action; applying the Limitation Ordinance and the cited authorities, the mortgages in each proceeding were held to be incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable and a declaration to that effect was made.
4 Jul 2000

WONG KOON CHUNG PAUL v. CHUNG WAN SUM

Citation

WONG KOON CHUNG PAUL v. CHUNG WAN SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP712/1999

Given the evidence of continuous exclusive possession by successors in title since 1973, and the absence of any payment, demand or acknowledgement in respect of the 1905 mortgage, the court declares that the mortgage insofar as it applies to Section A of Lot No. 873 is incapable of subsistence or unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347).
17 Mar 2000

LEE YIU TONG AND OTHERS v. CHUNG WAN FAI

Citation

LEE YIU TONG AND OTHERS v. CHUNG WAN FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3011/1998

On the evidence that no repayment or demand had been made by the mortgagee or any persons claiming under the mortgage since the property was in the possession of the predecessor owners (at least by 1974), the Limitation Ordinance bars enforcement of the 1912 mortgage; accordingly the court declared the mortgage incapable of subsistence or unenforceable.
23 Feb 2000

TANG CHOW FAT AND OTHERS v. LEI TSOI WAN

Citation

TANG CHOW FAT AND OTHERS v. LEI TSOI WAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6408/1999

Given continuous family possession of the lots since 1905 and absence of any repayment, acknowledgement or claim under the recorded mortgages, the mortgages recorded in the Block Crown Leases are incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance, and declarations to that effect are appropriate in each of the five proceedings.
7 Dec 1999

LEE SHEK MUI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FUK SAN

Citation

LEE SHEK MUI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG FUK SAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1771/1999

The mortgage dated 4 November 1907 is incapable of subsistence or is unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance because the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in uninterrupted possession since at least 1968, there has been no demand for payment of principal or interest, and the evidential facts establish that limitation and related equitable considerations bar enforcement; the declaration is confined to Section J of Lot No. 465 and does not affect other parts of Lot No. 465.
27 Apr 1999

CHENG TIN LOI AND ANOTHER v. LI YUNG HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHENG TIN LOI AND ANOTHER v. LI YUNG HING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1892/1998

On the evidence of long lapse without demand since at least 1980, possession by the registered owners and intervening mortgage and redemption inconsistent with defendants having been in possession, the 1905 mortgage was found incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance, and a declaration in the terms sought was granted.
22 Dec 1995

TSE KAM HUNG v. ITALIAN MISSIONARY, SOCIETY OF SAI KUNG

Citation

TSE KAM HUNG v. ITALIAN MISSIONARY, SOCIETY OF SAI KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP42/1995

On the unchallenged evidence that no payment had been made since 1954, that the mortgagee could not be located and the claim was therefore stale, the court concluded any claim in respect of the mortgage is time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance Cap.347 and granted the declaration sought.