Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgagee in possession

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2022

LEE TIM MUI v. HUI SHU PANG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1427
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP33/2019

The court found on the balance of probabilities that plaintiff was authorised by Chen/Sheng Zhan from 1998 to possess and manage the property as a licensee (including custody of keys and title deeds), that her acts were pursuant to that permission (not exclusive adverse possession against the registered owner), she did not possess adversely for the requisite 12 years, and therefore her claim fails and defendant’s counterclaim for vacant possession and mesne profits succeeds.
18 Jan 2019

KO SHUN v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 85
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5242/2018

The summons for an interlocutory mandatory injunction is dismissed because there is no serious question to be tried on the claimed vehicular right of way (the owners of the servient tenements are not parties and the plaintiff as a licensee lacks locus for lost modern grant), public nuisance was not pleaded and private nuisance was not demonstrated; the plaintiff has not shown the high degree of assurance of success required for a mandatory injunction and delay plus available interim parking arrangements undermine any claim of irreparable harm, so the balance of convenience favors the defendan…
10 Dec 2018

NG HONG PONG v. LI SHIU TO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2135/2011

The plaintiff failed to prove on cogent evidence that the 2002 and 2003 tenancy agreements or the signatures therein were forged; absent proof of forgery the tenancies stood and defeated any animus possidendi required for adverse possession, so the adverse possession claim failed and the plaintiff must give possession of the Disputed Area to the 3rd defendant.
16 Mar 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CREATIVE FAR EAST LTD

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CREATIVE FAR EAST LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV277/2004

On the facts the plaintiff, as mortgagee in possession, held an independent legal entitlement to rents and service charges after taking possession; there was no evidence the plaintiff was the assignee of the defendant's alleged overpayments or had assumed the landlord's personal liabilities, and therefore the defendant's asserted equities could not be set off against the plaintiff's claim; the summary judgment and striking out of the counterclaim were correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
4 Aug 1999

SIN HUA BANK LTD. v. TURNVIEW CO. LTD.

Citation

SIN HUA BANK LTD. v. TURNVIEW CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3348/1999

Because no final agreement was concluded to accept the defendant as tenant at the reduced rent and the defendant remained in occupation without paying rent, the plaintiff as mortgagee in possession was entitled to mesne profits at $105,000 per month from 1 August 1998 to 4 March 1999.
3 Jun 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/1999

The Court allowed the appeals: the Bank was not entitled to distrain because no landlord-tenant relationship had arisen between the Bank and the lessees — the Bank's demand for rent and appointments of agents did not suffice and the lessees did not unequivocally accept the Bank as landlord; additionally the District Court had jurisdiction to hear applications to discharge or suspend warrants before seizure under s.93(1) of the Ordinance.
3 Jun 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV4/1999

The Bank was not entitled to distrain because no landlord-tenant relationship had arisen between the Bank and the lessees: the Bank's conduct (possession and demand for rent) constituted an offer of tenancy but there was no unequivocal acceptance by the lessees; further, s.93(1) Cap.7 does not preclude an application to discharge or suspend a warrant before seizure, so the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the applications.
3 Jun 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. GROW UP TRADING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/1999

The Bank was not entitled to distrain because no landlord-tenant relationship had arisen: assignment and possession plus demands for payment did not amount to an offer and unequivocal acceptance by the lessees; consequently the warrants were improperly issued. Further, s.93(1) Cap.7 does not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction to hear pre-seizure applications to discharge or suspend warrants.
18 Apr 1985

CHIIAPHUA INDUSTRIES LTD v. HUA CHIAO COMMERCIAL BANK LTD

Citation

CHIIAPHUA INDUSTRIES LTD v. HUA CHIAO COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/1985

Clause 4(h) was a covenant running with the land because it operated as a buttress to the covenants that touch and concern the land; accordingly the assignee/mortgagee in possession was liable to return the security deposit and pay interest.
1 Mar 1985

INNSBRUCK INC. v. THE O\'WNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "C.C. ORIENT"

Citation

INNSBRUCK INC. v. THE O\'WNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "C.C. ORIENT"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ296/1984

Leave to intervene was refused because the interveners failed to show a prima facie equitable basis to disturb the court's previously determined priorities: they had not preserved or conferred a direct benefit on the res, presented no established priority or judgment, and there was no evidence the mortgagees acted unconscionably sufficient to warrant varying the order; the interveners have an adequate alternative remedy by separate action.