Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of charges

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

CAI DEYAN AND ANOTHER v. LAM TING HON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1441/2024

Defendant had no arguable defence to purchasers' claim that his refusal to discharge the Third Mortgage and failure to remove it before completion posed a real risk of defeating purchasers' title; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Master's conditional leave to defend set aside, judgment entered for plaintiffs for return of deposits (HK$2,020,000) and liquidated damages (HK$2,020,000), with interest and costs.
8 Aug 2024

安譽資本策略有限公司對馮楓 aka 冯枫及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1227
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5569/2023

Plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession and an order for sale because there was an undisputed registered third legal charge and an existing money judgment for the secured debt; the certified copy of the charge was admissible because the original was lost and its existence and effect were not genuinely disputed; partition was impractical for a single flat; no credible evidence established that a sale would cause extreme hardship; sale ordered subject to prior registered charges with detailed allocation of proceeds; plaintiff awarded costs against first defendant on indemnity basis except s…
2 Jul 2024

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LAM WING FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1067
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4969/2023

The 1st defendant admitted liability so money judgment was entered; the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and thus has priority; partition is impracticable and the 2nd defendant failed to prove very great hardship, therefore the court exercised its discretion under the Partition Ordinance and Order 88 RDC to order sale of the Property subject to the specified reserved price and distribution priorities.
27 Oct 2023

BEI NI LTD v. CORNWELL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA923/2022

The court held the Huatai Share Charge is a fixed charge because Huatai retained sufficient control and proceeds of disposals were automatically applied to reduce indebtedness; therefore the Huatai Share Charge ranks ahead of the P Charging Order and the Judgment finally determined substantive rights, making it appealable as of right under Order 59 r21(1)(a) RHC.
13 Jul 2023

BEI NI LTD v. CORNWELL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA923/2022

The Huatai Share Charge was a fixed charge because Huatai had positive legal control over the charged shares and over sale proceeds which were automatically applied to reduce the margin debt; accordingly the Huatai Share Charge has priority over the plaintiff's P Charging Order and the Sum paid into court is to be paid out to Huatai; however no implied undertaking as to damages arose from the P Charging Order nisi and that limb of Huatai's application is dismissed.
13 Jun 2022

HONG KONG SAI KUNG NGONG WO RESORT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZHANG XIANJIE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1387/2018

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that Ngong Wo provided the funds to purchase and renovate the House and therefore a resulting trust arose in its favour; however Fu Tat, a licensed money lender with a registered legal charge, did not have actual or constructive notice of Ngong Wo's equitable interest and thus its legal charge has priority and it is entitled to vacant possession despite the beneficial ownership finding.
10 Jun 2021

SKK (H.K.) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSUI PO HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP934/2019

The court ordered sale of the charged property because defendants admit inability to pay the judgment debts, there is sufficient equity after prior registered charges and sale expenses, the prior Legal Charge only affects priority and does not prevent enforcement, the disputes over the 7 cheques and related matters are barred by res judicata or abuse of process, defendants' counterclaims are unproven and largely time‑barred, and the late summons to set aside the charging order and to recover title deeds is unsupported; accordingly an order for sale with a specified reserve and costs direction…
27 Apr 2021

WINLAND FINANCE LTD v. GAIN HERO FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 576
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2019

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge: the WF Loan Agreement only assigned rights to future sale proceeds (not an interest in the land), delivery of title deeds did not create an equitable mortgage given the agreement's terms, and GH's Charging Order created a proprietary equitable charge over the land that took priority over WF's assignment of future proceeds; therefore WF's appeal failed.
28 Sept 2020

ASPAROUH IANEV DIMITROV as administrator of the estate of KALOIAN IANEV DIMITROV (deceased) v. DOMINIC TAK MING LAU also known as LAU TAK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP887/2018

The Charging Order Absolute retained priority over the later Assignment because it related back to the date of the Charging Order Nisi; the defendants failed to prove any beneficial interest in the Property (gift, matrimonial entitlement, or estoppel) with credible contemporaneous evidence; the 1st Defendant misled the court and the defendants' conduct suggested an attempt to defeat the charging order; accordingly it was just and equitable to enforce the Charging Order and order sale; applications to vacate or set aside the Charging Order Absolute were dismissed.
26 Oct 2018

CATHERWOOD LTD v. FENG JIN LIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1052/2014

On the facts the court was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to infer an actual intent to defraud by D1 at the time of the mortgage; alternatively, even if such intent could be inferred, D2 discharged its s60(3) burden by showing it acted in good faith and without actual or constructive notice after taking reasonable searches and enquiries; accordingly s60 CPO did not void the mortgage and the declaration sought by D2 succeeds.