Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgagee power of sale

Legal area

Court

24 May 2022

CS CREDIT LTD v. MARSPAN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1484/2019

The stay was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate an arguable appeal on the constructive notice point given the judge applied the correct legal standard and the facts did not show CS Credit had constructive notice, and because the absence of a stay would not render the appeal nugatory as Far East's interest was unproven and would likely only attract monetary compensation.
13 Apr 2022

KU HIU YANG HAYLEY v. YANG LI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP666/2021

The court held the plaintiff failed to prove it could give good title because the Discharge remained a valid registered instrument that could not be ignored on the basis of an unproven presumption or unsubstantiated allegation of mistake; the plaintiff failed to obtain primary evidence or satisfactory confirmation from the parties who executed the documents and therefore did not sufficiently answer the defendant's requisitions, requiring dismissal of the summons.
6 Feb 2009

SHIRANNE HOLDINGS LTD v. SKY FOX INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

SHIRANNE HOLDINGS LTD v. SKY FOX INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2126/2008

The stay was refused because the liquidators' offer to deposit any surplus did not adequately enable Shiranne to enforce its equitable lien or obtain the relief sought; the liquidators had not accepted Shiranne's entitlement and made unparticularised fraud allegations, so the dispute required court determination and could not be supplanted by the proposed arrangement.
20 Mar 2008

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GOLDENWICK LTD

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GOLDENWICK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2645/2004

Goldenwick failed to satisfactorily answer Requisition 12: the 1999 mortgage did not create a legal estate in the Entrance Hall and 1/F portions (it was at best a chose in action/equitable interest), section 53 CPO did not operate to pass good legal title by the mortgagee sale, parts of the Entrance Hall and 1/F portions were common services/right of way under the Sub-DMC and the mere proviso 'sold subject to Sub-DMC' was insufficient disclosure of latent title defects; accordingly Goldenwick had not shown good title and SCB validly rescinded the agreements and was entitled to return of depos…
11 May 2007

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. COSAN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. COSAN LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV331/2006

The Court held the judge was entitled to reject the alleged settlement as wholly incredible on the totality of contemporaneous documentary evidence and inconsistent versions given by the defendant, and even if an agreement had been alleged it would be legally ineffective for want of consideration under Foakes v Beer and Selectmove; accordingly there was no triable defence and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Nov 2005

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. MORE FAIR PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. MORE FAIR PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2005

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence supported the trial judge's factual finding that the bank authorised the solicitors' firm only to attest execution of standard documents and there was no actual or ostensible authority given to the 2nd defendant to negotiate or make representations binding the bank; accordingly the 3rd defendant was not induced by any binding misrepresentation and the trial judge's findings should not be disturbed on appeal.
28 Feb 2005

FORDPOINTER SHIPPING CO LTD v. SINO DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FORDPOINTER SHIPPING CO LTD v. SINO DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP292/2004

Plaintiff acted reasonably in pursuing specific performance; because the remedy became aborted on 26 March 2004 (not by Plaintiff's fault) damages are to be assessed at that date: market value $23,400,000 minus contract price $13,475,000 equals $9,925,000; award interest at judgment rate from 30 January 2004; deposit not deducted.
5 May 2003

NANYANG FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK WING

Citation

NANYANG FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2227/2002

The vendor failed to discharge the contractual obligation to show and prove good title because the registered Form 8 giving notice of application for ancillary relief and seeking settlement/transfer orders created a real and arguable risk to title at the time completion was due; that risk could not be disregarded as illusory and therefore the purchaser was not obliged to complete.
1 Dec 2000

LEUNG KAI YIP v. HOP WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

LEUNG KAI YIP v. HOP WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1606/2000

Because the vendor produced the Crown lease and the intermediate root of title required by s13(1) and the purchaser only showed a bare possibility rather than a real probability of defect in the pre-intermediate title, the purchaser was not entitled to raise the requisition; alternatively the memorial supplied constituted sufficient secondary evidence and the Limitation Ordinance barred any claim by the mortgagor, therefore the vendor proved good title and the requisition was adequately answered.
7 Jul 2000

RE: LAM YUK HA and EX PARTE: CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LTD.

Citation

RE: LAM YUK HA and EX PARTE: CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB484/2000

The court found no binding agreement on the terms alleged because the concessions were conditional on surrender of possession by 17 August 1999 which the Debtors did not comply with; contemporaneous records supported the Bank's version; even if an agreement existed it would lack consideration under Re Selectmove; the Debtors failed to show a prima facie case that the sale was at an undervalue sufficient to defeat the bankruptcy petitions, and therefore bankruptcy orders were made.