Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of interests

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2024

SHUN ON FINANCE LTD v. WONG FUNG KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 889
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV439/2022

The appeal fails because (1) estoppel by deed cannot be relied on between immediate parties who are aware of the true circumstances (the 1st and 2nd defendants knew the Assignment was for administrative convenience), so the plaintiff cannot stand in a better position than the 1st defendant; (2) the plaintiff did not plead or prove the necessary elements of estoppel by representation (no pleaded or evidential reliance or detriment linking the Assignment clause to the plaintiff's advance); accordingly the judge correctly rejected estoppel and upheld the finding that the 2nd defendant held the b…
17 Jan 2024

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. WONG KWOK WA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 76
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3591/2023

Leave to join was granted because there are genuine triable issues as to the Intended Interveners' beneficial ownership and as to imputed and constructive notice that are not plainly without merit; a partial stay (in relation to delivery up of the Property) was granted because resolution of the High Court Action could dispose of the threshold beneficial ownership issue and thereby avoid wasted proceedings and costs, serving the ends of justice.
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.
24 May 2022

TAN WAI KEE v. MARSPAN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1852/2020

On the facts, CS Credit was entitled to enforce its legal charges and was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the alleged equitable interests because Far East and CIE failed to adduce evidence that the surrender and regrant or payment of the premium were facts known to CS Credit or would, by reasonable inquiry, have revealed the asserted prior proprietary rights; therefore CS Credit takes free of the alleged interests and the stay of execution pending appeal is refused.
19 Nov 2020

BAO YUAN FINANCE LTD v. LUO GUIYING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP968/2019

On the evidence before the court it was not arguable that Zhang had a beneficial interest: the contemporaneous intention was that Zhang gifted the property to Fang (and the DOT supports that Fang is sole beneficial owner), so no resulting trust arose in Zhang's favour; further, even if Fang had a beneficial interest that interest would not bind P because P was a subsequent bona fide mortgagee protected by LRO s.3(2). Therefore P's possession claim succeeds and the preliminary questions are answered in the negative.
16 Jul 2018

SI TOU CHOI KAM v. WEALTH CREDIT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 399
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds were either new or fact‑sensitive, did not arise from this Court's judgment and did not raise questions of great or general public importance; Lok J's earlier declaration that the husband held the property on resulting trust binds the defendant and, on that basis, charging orders could not be made and should be discharged.
17 Jul 2017

SI TOU CHOI KAM v. WEALTH CREDIT LTD

Citation

SI TOU CHOI KAM v. WEALTH CREDIT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP537/2016

The court granted leave to appeal because the plaintiff demonstrated a real prospect of success on the unsettled question whether charging orders registered on the land register can be vacated retrospectively by a subsequent court declaration of equitable interest, and because the interests of justice warranted hearing the appeal; consequently the application for leave succeeded and costs were reserved in the cause with certificate for counsel.
14 Nov 2016

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MASTER UNIVERSE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. MASS OCEAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1850/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge concluded there was no sufficient prospect of success on the draft grounds: MUL's pleadings raised a bona fide triable issue that the Leases were sham transactions executed in a scheme to defeat MUL's prior equitable interests and alleged fraud/alter ego conduct requiring trial; the legal issues on priorities under the LRO were settled in principle and resolution depended on factual inquiry and evidence, not pure law, so leave was not justified.
9 Feb 2012

LI TIN YAU v. LAU MAY YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

LI TIN YAU v. LAU MAY YEE AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1012/2011

The court held that Li proved vendor Lau breached the Agreement and that the Agreement was rescinded entitling Li to return of the deposit and part payment. Because Nip’s alleged prior agreement was unregistered, Li as a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value prevailed under the LRO; the lis pendens registered by Nip on 4 November 2005 ranked after the Agreement registered in October 2005. Therefore Li has priority to the funds in court to the extent of his entitlement; he is awarded return of HK$390,000 plus interest from commencement and costs.
21 Jul 2008

TSANG YEE MUI v. MAK CHIK WING

Citation

TSANG YEE MUI v. MAK CHIK WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2606/2006

Discretion exercised against ordering security for costs: plaintiff has fixed assets in Hong Kong which are available for enforcement and there was unjustified delay by defendants in making the application so that ordering security at this late stage would cause hardship and potential injustice to the plaintiff; consequently the defendants' summons for security for costs is dismissed and defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.