Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Stale mortgage

  • 5 Dec 2025

    RE LAM MUK CHOI

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6124
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1455/2025

    The applicant proved he was entitled to redeem and had taken reasonable steps to locate the mortgagee who could not be found; exercising the court's discretion under s12A, payment into court of HK$52 (HK$4 principal plus interest at 10% p.a. compounded over 120 years as adopted for contingency) was sufficient to redeem the mortgage; leave granted subject to advertisement and time for any interested person to apply.

  • 5 Dec 2025

    RE LAM MUK CHOI

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4801
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1454/2025

    The applicant established he took reasonable steps to locate the mortgagee who could not be found; the mortgage endorsement showed a nominal original sum and no evidence of onerous terms; applying the established s12A principles the court exercised its discretion to permit payment into court of HK$325 (principal plus 10% per annum over 120 years to cover interest and contingencies) and ordered advertisement and procedural steps prior to final declaration.

  • 23 Jul 2020

    RE LAI YAT SING

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 1685
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2329/2019

    The applicant had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate the mortgagee, the mortgagee could not be found or identified, the Court therefore permitted the payment of HKD51.32 into court as sufficient to redeem the recorded $5 mortgage with accrued interest and granted a declaration that the Property is freed from the mortgage and directed that the mortgage registration be vacated.

  • 31 Jul 2013

    YAU PAK HIN AND ANOTHER v. HO LUNG THOMAS IGNATIUS

    Citation
    YAU PAK HIN AND ANOTHER v. HO LUNG THOMAS IGNATIUS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP628/2012

    The court held that while the mortgage appears long since time-barred under s19 of the Limitation Ordinance, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Yau Chun Wing was a trustee of FLK or that any trusteeship continued such that the defendant could be held liable; the defendant held only a limited letters of administration de bonis non and had neither been appointed nor accepted trusteeship so O.15 r RHC and Trustee Ordinance s20(2) did not make him liable; consequently the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant were dismissed.