24 Feb 2026
Because the Applicants paid the specified sum into court and published the required advertisement in compliance with the court's directions under s.12A, the court is entitled to declare that the Property is free from the encumbrance constituted by the Mortgage.
9 May 2025
The applicants complied with the statutory procedure by paying the requisite sum into court and publishing the required advertisement under the Limitation Ordinance; no person applied to join or asserted an interest; therefore the court must declare under s12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance that the registered mortgage memorial no longer encumbers the property.
15 Mar 2024
The court was satisfied on the evidence that the mortgagee and trustee could not be located despite reasonable enquiries, that there was no evidence the mortgage had been discharged, and that the proposed payment of HK$850 (HK$25 principal plus HK$7.50 yearly interest applied over 110 years) was adequate to satisfy any interest the mortgagee might have; accordingly the court granted leave to pay HK$850 into court and to proceed without notice, with directions for advertisement and a subsequent s12A(2) application.
13 Dec 2023
The Court was satisfied the applicants are registered owners entitled to redeem the mortgage, that the mortgagee could not be found despite reasonable searches engaging s12A(1), and that the proposed payment of $160 into Court was reasonable to redeem the mortgage; consequently leave was granted to pay $160 into Court and the procedural steps for advertisement and subsequent application for a declaration under s12A(2) were ordered.
27 Sept 2023
The Court was satisfied applicants are registered proprietors, the mortgage remains on the Lands and the mortgagee cannot be found; the proposed sum of $5,460 is reasonable to redeem the mortgage (including interest) and therefore leave to pay that sum into Court is granted, subject to advertisement and the usual post-payment procedural steps for a section 12A application.
30 Dec 2022
Tender of 30 August 2021 was invalid because plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient objective evidence that the tender sum was set aside and available for immediate payment; accordingly interest did not cease on that date and continued to accrue until plaintiffs paid into court on 15 September 2021; several items claimed by defendant were disallowed as not properly or reasonably incurred in relation to enforcement (CBRE valuation fees, Fonto consultancy fee, and pre-assignment legal due diligence) while certain costs were allowed (specified legal fees of US$105,350.28 ~ HK$821,732.18, receiv…
13 Dec 2022
Applicants are the registered owners entitled to redeem; the Mortgagee Cheung Ting Iu cannot be found despite reasonable steps; the proposed sum of HK$4,148 (calculated including interest on a notional 20% annual rate) is sufficient to redeem the Mortgage; accordingly leave is granted to pay HK$4,148 into court and directions for advertisement and subsequent application under s.12A(2) were made; no order as to costs.
7 Jul 2022
The court was satisfied the plaintiffs were registered owners entitled to redeem, the mortgage subsisted, and reasonable steps to locate the encumbrancer failed thus engaging s.12A; the court approved payment of $2,160 into court (calculated from $100 principal and a notional 20% interest) and ordered advertising and a procedure for a subsequent declaration that the properties be free from the mortgage.
27 Nov 2020
The court found on the facts that Lam loaned money to Cheng personally and the contemporaneous Acknowledgement was valid; the parties entered a set-off agreement whereby Cheng transferred her half interest to Lam in settlement of the HK$1,000,000 debt; that set-off agreement was not void for past consideration in the factual context (transfer in kind and practical discharge of liability) and therefore the Assignment operated in settlement; accordingly Cheng's primary claim for HK$1,000,000 failed and Lam's counterclaims for repayment and contribution to mortgage redemption succeeded.
27 Nov 2020
The court found on the facts that the loans were made by the defendant to the plaintiff personally, the Acknowledgement was valid and binding, and the parties agreed a set-off by which the plaintiff transferred her half interest in the property to the defendant in settlement of the HK$1,000,000 debt; the set-off agreement was supported by consideration in the form of effective discharge of the debt by payment in kind and was not void as past consideration; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for HK$1,000,000 failed, the defendant's counterclaims succeeded for repayment of outstanding loans and…