Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgages

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2024

YU CHUNG LEUNG ALAN v. The Intended Administrator of the estate of WONG CHEUK MING KENNETH, deceased

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 982
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1436/2020

The court found that the deceased made an assurance that the Property would be conveyed to the plaintiff upon performance; the plaintiff relied on that assurance by procuring and repaying the loan, paying upfront sums and monthly instalments and allowing the deceased to live rent-free, thereby suffering detriment. These elements satisfy proprietary estoppel and it would be unconscionable for the Estate to resile; the appropriate remedy is an order that the Estate convey the Property to the plaintiff.
10 Aug 2017

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. SUPER GLOW INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. SUPER GLOW INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3109/2016

The court found the defendants' account of non est factum not believable in the context of the undisputed background and documentary evidence, including related corporate approvals and subsequent counter-signing of facility letters; accordingly the non est factum defence failed and the Bank was entitled to summary judgment for the claimed sums, interest, vacant possession (as to SG) and costs nisi on an indemnity basis.
25 Mar 2010

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP339/2010

The court held that a declaration freeing land from a mortgage cannot be made before payment into court because s12A(2) confers a discretion that only arises upon payment; accordingly the one‑stage approach is impermissible. Where mortgagees cannot be found the court may order payment into court under s12A(1) but must provide for publicity/notice (advertisement) and permit an application under s12A(2) after an appropriate period, thereby balancing expedition with protection of encumbrancers' rights.
25 Mar 2010

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP344/2010

Section 12A does not authorize a pre‑payment declaration freeing land from a mortgage; the court must first order payment into court under s12A(1) and only then, exercising its discretion under s12A(2) and having considered notice and fairness, may declare the land free. The proposed one‑stage approach defeats that statutory discretion and is impermissible.
25 Mar 2010

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP338/2010

The court refused the one‑stage approach because s.12A(2) creates a discretion that only arises upon payment into court and the court lacks jurisdiction to declare land free of encumbrances before payment; accordingly the court ordered payment into court under s.12A(1) but imposed advertising and timing conditions to protect unknown mortgagees and preserve the court's discretion under s.12A(2).
25 Mar 2010

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE LIGHT TIME INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP330/2010

The one‑stage approach is impermissible because s12A(2) confers a discretion that arises only after payment into court under s12A(1); making a declaration before payment would extinguish the discretion and exceed the court's jurisdiction, therefore the court ordered payment into court first, mandated advertisement and permitted a subsequent s12A(2) paper application.
23 Aug 2007

J & J CHEMTRADING CO LTD v. CITICHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

J & J CHEMTRADING CO LTD v. CITICHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW356/2007

Because the sale was entered into bona fide at an appropriate price and granting validation would not prejudice any party while preserving the liquidator's rights to investigate and pursue recoveries, the court granted a validation order limited to the transfer and specified costs.
1 Aug 2002

ALPHA STAR ENTERPRISES LTD. v. The Personal Representative of TANG MEI SHIN, deceased

Citation

ALPHA STAR ENTERPRISES LTD. v. The Personal Representative of TANG MEI SHIN, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3206/2001

Relief refused because plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the mortgagee's right to payment had accrued more than 12 years earlier given the absence of evidence as to the mortgage's repayment terms; consequently s.19 could not be applied to extinguish the mortgage rights.
19 Nov 2001

LAM KA LOK v. HO YIN YUK

Citation

LAM KA LOK v. HO YIN YUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17908/1999

The court found on the evidence that Lam and Bevan obtained Ho's funds by deceit and manipulation rather than by gift, were unjustifiably enriched, and held them liable in restitution for specific sums withdrawn into their accounts; claims by Lam based on a supposed joint venture and loans were fabricated and dismissed.
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

HCMP4207/1998

Because the plaintiffs proved continuous undisturbed possession for more than 20 years, the mortgages were only noted in the Block Crown Lease schedule with no identifiable mortgagee, and proper advertisement and substituted service had been effected, section 19 of the Limitation Ordinance extinguished the mortgages or rendered them incapable of taking effect; accordingly declarations were granted following the precedent of Fung Kam Cheung.