Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of registered charges

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

YES CAPITAL LTD v. YEUNG SE WANG STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP66/2024

D2 failed to prove a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel because the 2012 assurances were ambiguous as to timing, there was no shared common intention, and there was no evidence of detrimental reliance; the FCMC consent order was registered after the Second Mortgage and does not override the earlier registered charge; accordingly Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Second Mortgage and obtain an order for sale, and D2's counterclaim is dismissed.
18 Jul 2025

WANFU FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. NG CHI FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP558/2024

The Court held that Clause 5 of the 2022 Agreement operates to relieve the 2nd Defendant from liability to bear costs and disbursements of the mortgagee sale; the registration of the 2002 Family Court Order ceased to have effect on 10 March 2008 under s.17 LRO and need not be vacated; and the Court declined to remove the 2023 Writ of Summons recorded as pending registration because the writ's registrability had not been argued by the writ-holder and, in any event, the Mortgage and Second Legal Charge have priority under s.3(1) LRO, so removal was unnecessary.
22 Jan 2024

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG CHIU KING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 135
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP455/2023

Plaintiff satisfied statutory and contractual requirements for a money judgment and for enforcement of the Second Mortgage; partition of the small residential flat is impractical, no evidence of very great hardship to co-owners exists, therefore an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance should be made; costs awarded to plaintiff against the 1st defendant on an indemnity basis per mortgage clause but refused against the 2nd defendant.
22 Mar 2022

LAU TIN SHEK v. TSANG KOON SAU

Citation

[2022] HKDC 258
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2784/2013

The claimant failed to prove the alleged Agreement or any payment to the developer and was found to be an unreliable witness; his equitable claims (promissory estoppel, resulting trust, constructive trust) therefore fail; occupation began with the owner’s consent (a licence) so was not adverse for the statutory period and adverse possession fails; the Tenancy Agreement is a sham and does not constitute an acknowledgement resetting limitation; accordingly South-China’s registered legal charge is enforceable and judgment is entered for South-China with an order for vacant possession.
27 Jun 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY CENTRE v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CENTURY CENTRE v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP166/2011

Re-registration under s17 and the effect given by s18 must be read with s3: a prior duly registered charging order retains its priority over later registered charges even if five years elapse provided the chargee re-registers in accordance with s17; the legislature intended registration to give certainty of priority and not to permit lapse and re-registration to alter antecedent priorities (following Beavan v The Earl of Oxford and Shaw v Neale).
31 Jan 2008

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. WAN SHUI SHEK AND ANOTHER

Citation

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. WAN SHUI SHEK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1219/2007

The court held that the Provisional Agreement was ineffective and void because it was entered into and registered after the registered building mortgage and in breach of both the building licence (which prohibited assignment without District Lands Officer consent) and the building mortgage (which prohibited disposition without the mortgagee's prior written consent); accordingly the registered mortgage prevails and the registration of the Provisional Agreement must be vacated.
20 Jan 1989

WONG KAM WING AND ANOTHER v. VYRIL MURKIN (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KAM WING AND ANOTHER v. VYRIL MURKIN (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1722/1988

Priority between competing charging orders is determined by the order of registration of the charging order nisi; because the charging order nisi made on 19 May 1988 was registered on 26 May 1988 before the 5 May 1988 nisi was registered on 3 June 1988, the 1st Defendant's charging order (now assigned to the 3rd Defendant) takes priority; assignment transfers that priority to the assignee.
3 Dec 1969

DAO HENG BANK LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAO HENG BANK LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP196/1969

The court held that a prohibitory order registered after a prior registered mortgage does not defeat the mortgagee's pre-existing rights; the order only binds the judgment debtor's interest (equity of redemption), so the mortgagee validly exercised the power of sale, the sale did not breach the prohibitory order, and registration of the assignment did not constitute contempt; the sale was sanctioned as a matter of caution.