Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal charge enforcement

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

E FINANCE LTD v. MAK MUN YEE CONNIE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP219/2020

The court found the Company advanced the loan and held a valid registered Legal Charge; Doo failed to prove her allegations of fraud or a secret reconveyance agreement because her evidence was uncorroborated and not credible; Li and Wong did not have authority to bind the Company and Golden Express acted as introducer only. Consequently the Company was entitled to enforce the Legal Charge and obtain vacant possession; Doo's broader claims were dismissed but Doo proved non-payment of the HK$2,500,000 initial sum and HK$400,000 stamp duty by Connie, so judgment against Connie was entered for th…
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.
28 Apr 2020

EASY ONE FINANCE LTD v. LEE KAM MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 192
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3558/2018

Judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant for the specified indebtedness because he defaulted under the Loan Agreement and EOFL proved the indebtedness and calculations; partition was impracticable given the size and configuration of the flat and absence of evidence from co-owner to show sale would cause hardship, therefore an order for sale under section 6 of the Partition Ordinance was appropriate; the court ordered payment of the debt with contractual interest at 14% from 19 December 2018 and specified a schedule and priorities for sale proceeds and costs.
30 Dec 2011

ON SKY ENTERPRISE (HK) LTD v. LANCO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ON SKY ENTERPRISE (HK) LTD v. LANCO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA529/2010

Although the plaintiff's delay in seeking extension was inordinate and inexcusable and attributable to the plaintiff and its counsel, the prejudice to defendants (notably D3) was insubstantial and did not make a fair trial impossible and there was no established abuse of process; accordingly striking out was disproportionate and the court granted a conditional extension of time with penalties and timetabling directions rather than striking out.
16 Sept 2005

FULLSCALE ENTERPRISES LTD v. ASIA GOLF AND RESORT LTD

Citation

FULLSCALE ENTERPRISES LTD v. ASIA GOLF AND RESORT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3252/2004

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to raise credible evidence of a triable issue: its defence relied entirely on the testimony of Mak which the court found inherently unbelievable in light of documentary evidence (assignment, rescheduling, cheque payment, registration of the legal charge and Mak's prior acceptance of summary judgment), so summary judgment was properly entered.

Hong Kong Case Law

E FINANCE LTD v. MAK MUN YEE CONNIE AND ANOTHER

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

EASY ONE FINANCE LTD v. LEE KAM MUI AND ANOTHER

ON SKY ENTERPRISE (HK) LTD v. LANCO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

FULLSCALE ENTERPRISES LTD v. ASIA GOLF AND RESORT LTD