Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vacation of lis pendens

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FINE CHINA CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2581/2025

The Court vacated the registration of the Writ because the three year unexplained delay supported an inference of lack of bona fides and, applying the balance of justice, the Plaintiff's need to market and sell the Property after obtaining judgment and vacant possession outweighed any prejudice to the Defendant; accordingly the registration was vacated under s19 LRO and costs awarded to the Plaintiff (HK$100,000).
9 Apr 2025

吳春綠對李富平及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 567
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1261/2023

The third defendant's summons for summary judgment and for vacatur of the plaintiff's lis pendens was dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim did not dispute the bank's mortgage priority, the third defendant's counterclaim/pleading was not self-sufficient or adequately pleaded for summary relief, and the bank failed to adduce credible evidence that the registered writ caused the requisite prejudice or prevented sale such as would justify vacatur under LRO s.19; registration of the writ was a legitimate protective step by the plaintiff pending trial.
16 Oct 2012

KONG LAI NA v. PRIME ASPECT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KONG LAI NA v. PRIME ASPECT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA196/2012

The Statement of Claim against the 2nd defendant was struck out because the plaintiff produced no evidence or adequate particulars to support the allegations of a sham transaction or of the 2nd defendant's knowledge of the unregistered buy-back option; consequently the lis pendens registered against the property was vacated and costs were awarded to the 2nd defendant.
12 Jun 2012

YEUNG TSZ YING v. SHEN FRIEDA TONG AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG TSZ YING v. SHEN FRIEDA TONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA428/2012

The court was not satisfied that the action was not instituted or prosecuted bona fide or that there was dilatoriness; the allegations of fraud and conspiracy raised factual issues for trial and could not be decided summarily to justify vacating the lis pendens under section 19; therefore the application to vacate the lis pendens was dismissed and the lis pendens remains registered.
26 Feb 2010

CHU KAR YIN CATALINA v. AMTD RISK MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

CHU KAR YIN CATALINA v. AMTD RISK MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP266/2010

Insufficient evidence established by the applicant that the respondent prosecuted the action mala fide or that there was other good cause to vacate the lis pendens; factual issues about source of purchase funds and mortgage repayments left open for the substantive proceedings and bankruptcy processes; application to vacate dismissed and court granted leave for the plaintiff in HCA2225/2008 to extend the writ for 12 months from its expiry on 6 November 2009.
10 Apr 2008

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1540/2005

Section 19 covers instruments 'pending registration' and the court will exercise its wide discretion to vacate registration where doing so is just in the circumstances; here the court allowed vacatur of five instruments affecting the whole property on payment into court of HK$12,000,000 (HK$6,000,000 for the 1st Defendant and HK$6,000,000 for the Plaintiff) because the dispute concerned only Unit C, parties sought damages not specific performance, the 2nd Defendant offered security, and the sums ordered were assessed as sufficient to protect the parties' interests.
22 May 2006

SO WING KIN v. AU YEUNG YUE KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

SO WING KIN v. AU YEUNG YUE KWONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA155/2005

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of a detailed oral shareholders agreement inherently improbable and unproved given inconsistencies, delay and failure to object to alleged breaches; accordingly there was no enforceable oral shareholders agreement as pleaded and the lis pendens registered against the property was ordered vacated and the plaintiff's claim dismissed.
26 Apr 1999

OMAR INVESTMENT LTD. v. TUNG CHOI ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

OMAR INVESTMENT LTD. v. TUNG CHOI ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5091/1998

The court held that striking out immediately was not warranted but ordered the plaintiff to file its affirmation within 14 days failing which the summons would be struck out; the registration of the summons was vacated under s19 because of the plaintiff's unjustified delay and the weakness of its case on the late requisition, and the defendant had not waived time limits by its commentary.
19 Nov 1997

In re Chong Ching Yue, deceased

Citation

In re Chong Ching Yue, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12439/1994

The writ and the consent Order are registrable as a lis pendens under Cap.128 because the outstanding mandatory relief (removal of an external staircase that is the exclusive access to the 2nd floor) entails works affecting the Building and Lot and therefore may prejudice subsequent purchasers; registration is proper even against properties of applicants who were parties to the consent order because they remain under an obligation to do something to the land and the obligation is not spent.
29 Mar 1996

HO HIP LIK AND ANOTHER v. KWAN MAN HO AND OTHERS

Citation

HO HIP LIK AND ANOTHER v. KWAN MAN HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/1995

The appeal is allowed and the Probate action is dismissed for want of prosecution because the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable excuse for an inordinate and inexcusable delay of about three years from mid‑1992 to July 1995, which created a substantial risk of denying the 1st defendant a fair trial and caused serious prejudice (including an active lis pendens and blocked funds); accordingly the lis pendens must be vacated and the monies released to the 1st defendant's solicitors, and costs ordered against the plaintiffs.