Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Mortgage extinguishment

  • 3 Nov 2003

    TANG FU SING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG FOOK MUI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TANG FU SING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG FOOK MUI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1183/2003

    On the facts—no evidence of enforcement, mortgagee deceased long ago, uninterrupted possession by owners, and administrators' non‑opposition—the court concluded the mortgage has either been discharged or become statute‑barred under section 19 of the Limitation Ordinance and therefore is no longer subsisting or capable of taking effect, and granted the declaratory relief sought.

  • 18 Apr 2001

    TANG KAM SUI AND OTHERS v. TANG SHUI KI

    Citation
    TANG KAM SUI AND OTHERS v. TANG SHUI KI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP5111/2000

    Given the antiquity of the 1911 mortgage, the absence of any payment of interest or any three‑months notice to pay since at least the 1950s, continuous occupation by the registered owners or assignees without interference, and failure to locate the mortgagee despite enquiries and substituted service, the court held the mortgagee’s rights were time‑barred under section 19 Limitation Ordinance and declared the mortgage no longer subsisting or capable of taking effect.

  • 5 Sept 2000

    LEUNG KAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. TSE FO SHAU

    Citation
    LEUNG KAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. TSE FO SHAU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP4206/1998

    The court granted declarations because the plaintiffs and their predecessors demonstrated continuous undisturbed possession for more than 20 years, the mortgages were only recorded in the Schedule with no identifiable mortgagees and no rebuttal evidence was produced, and therefore under section 19 of the Limitation Ordinance the mortgages are no longer subsisting and cannot take effect.

  • 4 May 2000

    HO HON KWONG v. TANG HEI CHEUNG

    Citation
    HO HON KWONG v. TANG HEI CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2805/1997

    Given the evidence of uninterrupted exclusive possession by the plaintiff since 1983, the lack of any demand or enforcement by the defendant or his predecessor, and the operation of section 19 of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347), the mortgage is incapable of subsisting and a declaration to that effect must be made.