30 Jun 2023
The 13 December 2021 letter validly operated under clause 10.03 to accelerate the loan after the 10 December default; the originating summons complied with O.7 r.3(1); the alleged oral collateral agreement and counterclaims were inherently incredible and unsupported, so there were no triable issues and summary judgment for the Plaintiff was appropriate.
6 Dec 2022
Because the 1st Defendant declined to give evidence and there was no admissible evidence supporting fraud, undue influence or non est factum, and because documentary evidence and witness testimony established that the 1st Defendant understood and executed an all‑monies mortgage without the Bank having notice of any fraud, the defences fail; the Bank proved liability and quantum (HKD 55,806,460.44) and is entitled to judgement, possession and indemnity costs; the counterclaim is dismissed and no certificate for two counsel is granted.
18 Mar 2015
The court held the mortgage was valid and enforceable: Wan's allegations of fraud and non est factum were unsubstantiated and contradicted by company records; Wan had no tenancy or unwritten equitable interest affecting the mortgage; shareholders have no proprietary interest in company property; the court exercised its discretion under MLO s22(2) to allow enforcement of the 4% monthly penalty interest; ordered payment of outstanding indebtedness with interest and delivery of vacant possession within 28 days; costs to plaintiff on the usual basis.
6 Oct 2006
The judge accepted the Plaintiff's account as credible, found that the loan was advanced on 30 January 2004 and that the subsequent loan agreement, guarantee and mortgage related to that past advance (the documents were properly executed as deeds), and therefore the Defendant is bound and in default; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to possession and a money judgment calculated under the mortgage terms.
25 Jul 2006
The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff and his agent Alex Lee and rejected the defendant's account; the defendant failed to prove misrepresentation or that the plaintiff was carrying on or holding himself out as a money lender under the MLO; accordingly the statutory bar in s.23 did not apply and the loan and mortgage were enforceable; the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the outstanding sum and vacant possession and the defendant's counterclaim for restitution fails.
13 May 2003
The Snyder Agreement was a sham security for an illegal loan of c.HKD10,000,000 at an effective interest rate of about 102% p.a. contrary to the Money Lenders Ordinance; the Wa Lee Loan Agreement was procured by duress and in any event was entered into to effect repayment of illegal interest and thus was tainted by illegality and void ab initio; accordingly the mortgage and associated instruments dated 22 March 1999 are unenforceable and the plaintiff cannot obtain subrogation for sums paid to discharge the prior bank charge due to illegality and unclean hands.
28 Mar 2000
Given the historical challenge in 1945, absence of subsequent demands, absence of payments or acknowledgements by registered owners or their successors, and continuous possession by the Leung family, the court held the defendant's endorsed mortgage was incapable of subsistence or unenforceable and made the corresponding order applying the principle in Fung Kam Cheong.
15 Dec 1999
Given the long lapse of time, absence of repayments and absence of any demands by the mortgagees or claims against the plaintiff and its vendor, the mortgages and sub-mortgage registered under the 1905 Block Crown Lease are incapable of subsistence and unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347.
12 Oct 1999
Given uninterrupted possession by the plaintiffs and their families since 1945/1949, absence of any demand or enforcement and the long lapse since the 1905 mortgage, the mortgage is incapable of subsistence or otherwise unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance Cap.347; plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration to that effect.