Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgage/charge

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2024

RE DREAMEAST GROUP LTD (carrying on business in Hong Kong as DREAMEAST CULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 824
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW487/2023

The Letter of Acknowledgement together with contemporaneous documents and the Company’s management accounts established that the Debt of HK$36,795,192.46 was due and payable and not subject to a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; the Company was deemed and was plainly insolvent; no restructuring proposal existed to justify adjournment; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to make a usual winding up order against the Company.
15 Jan 2021

AU YIN PIN v. SHUN SENG HOP YICK KNITTING FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA359/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the evidence of the Mother, AYP and APC over that of AWC and the Company; contemporaneous accounting records, cheque payments and witness evidence established that the Company owed the Mother HK$1,660,000 and AYP HK$2,668,109.38 and that AWC personally undertook/guaranteed repayment by his cheques; the Company's claim against APC was defeated by the proved cheque discounting arrangement and Set-off Agreement and the Company’s repayment of the mortgage as set-off.
14 May 2020

惠利財務有限公司對吳潭堯

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2496/2014

Court accepted plaintiff's evidence that the parties entered into two written loan agreements on 18 September 2014, that plaintiff advanced funds as agreed (including payments to arrange redemption of the prior charge), that the defendant did not repay, and that the loan documents were genuine; therefore defendant is ordered to repay the principal sums and accrued interest at 42% p.a. from 18 October 2014 and plaintiff is entitled to enforce its charges and take vacant possession; costs awarded to plaintiff on the contractual basis specified in the charges.
16 Dec 2016

KP FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. ETERNALUCK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KP FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. ETERNALUCK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2525/2015

The plaintiff adduced sufficient prima facie evidence of the authenticity of the loan documents and links to the 1st defendant to shift the evidential burden; the 1st defendant produced conflicting evidence raising real disputes of fact (authority, forgery, authenticity) which cannot be resolved on affidavit and therefore require trial; accordingly the strike-out application must be dismissed.
9 Nov 2016

LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS

Citation

LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3234/2015

The Amended Statement of Claim was struck out as against the 3rd defendant because it constituted an abuse of process by collateral attack on possession orders and writs issued in DCMP; the correct forum for the plaintiff to assert his proprietary rights was by continuing to participate in the DCMP, not by instituting a separate High Court action.
30 Sept 2016

吳潭堯對陳沛賢

Citation

吳潭堯對陳沛賢
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2468/2015

The court struck out the statement of claim because the pleaded causes were frivolous and an abuse of process: the defendant was not responsible for the DD3 charge removal and any legal-aid charge issue was resolved later; the plaintiff, even if subjected to duress, subsequently confirmed the transaction and accepted the benefit (net proceeds), thereby losing the right to avoid it; most other allegations were unsupported, delayed and incapable of success, so the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
19 Sept 2013

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. LAU AND CHENG INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. LAU AND CHENG INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2009

Judge held the proposed amendments (including unjust enrichment paragraphs) were necessary to determine the real question in controversy and were not bound to fail on their face; Rule 8(1A) does not impose an additional 'exceptional circumstances' threshold and leave to amend should be granted before trial unless the new claim plainly fails; accordingly leave to amend was granted and consequential directions and costs order nisi were made.
2 Jun 2010

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1634/2009

Stay of execution was granted because the defendants gave an undertaking to prosecute the appeal diligently, the appeal appeared to have merit, and the bank would not be prejudiced in recovering the debt given the likely stability of the property's value; therefore the balance of convenience favored a stay pending appeal on that undertaking.
7 May 2009

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KWOK LAI SIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING HANG BANK LTD v. KWOK LAI SIM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV94/2008

The Court held the bank had constructive notice because the solicitors (3rd party) failed to discharge the Etridge duties: the sisters were not properly and independently advised, no adequate private meeting or signed comprehensive confirmation/attendance note occurred, and relevant financial information was not disclosed; accordingly the all‑monies legal charge was rescinded and the 3rd party was liable to indemnify the sisters against any claim under the charge.
9 Dec 2008

LAU CHUN KAM v. LAI TAK SHING

Citation

LAU CHUN KAM v. LAI TAK SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2126/2007

Clause 6 of the Agreement, read in its context and against contemporaneous conduct and documents, does not grant the Defendant an option to pay HK$1.5 million instead of assigning the 1st Floor; the Defendant's account was inherently implausible and inconsistent with documents and conduct (assignment plans, utility deposit allocations, design changes), so he failed to show a bona fide defence; accordingly the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Defendant holds the 1st Floor on trust for the Plaintiff and to orders for redemption of the charge as to the 1st Floor, execution of a de…