Profit Growth (China) Ltd. v. Tang Tak Kung

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 584/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 June 1999.

1. This is an application by the Plaintiff the registered owners of a piece of property in Yuen Long for an order that the mortgage endorsed on the Block Government Lease of the Property in favour of one Tang Tak Kung, the Defendant, be declared unenforceable by virtue of limitation.

Case No.HCMP 584/1998
Court
High Court CFI
Date03 Jun 1999
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP000584/1998

1998, No. MP584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 584 OF 1998

____________

In the Matter of a Mortgage endorsed on the Block Government Lease against ALL THOSE pieces or parcels of land registered in the Yuen Long New Territories Land Registry as Lot. No. 1255 and Lot. No. 1262 in DD No. 124 in favour of Tang Tak Kung

and

In the Matter of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong

BETWEEN
PROFIT GROWTH (CHINA) LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
TANG TAK KUNG Defendant

____________

Coram: The Honourable Madam Justice Yuen in Court

Date of Hearing : 3 June 1999

Date of Delivery of Judgment : 3 June 1999

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an application by the Plaintiff the registered owners of a piece of property in Yuen Long for an order that the mortgage endorsed on the Block Government Lease of the Property in favour of one Tang Tak Kung, the Defendant, be declared unenforceable by virtue of limitation.

2. I have read the papers. It is clear that ever since the issue of the Block Government Lease, the property had been in possession of a family ending with the succession to the property of Tang Siu Tseung whose name is otherwise spelt as Tang Chiu Tseung and his brother and son. It is this Mr. Tang Siu Tseung who had sold the properties to the present Plaintiff. The property had been in the possession of his ancestors for more than 80 years. They have quietly enjoyed possession and certainly no one within living memory has any knowledge of this alleged mortgagee, Tang Tak Kung. It has now been many many years since the date of the alleged mortgage, indeed nothing is known of the mortgage save its endorsement on the Block Government Lease.

3. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to an order. As to the terms of the order, it would appear to me that the order ought to follow the formulation of the order set out in Godfrey J.'s case in Fung Kam Cheung which has been reported in 1991, Hong Kong Cases. As the Defendant has not appeared, there would be no order as to costs.

(Maria Yuen)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr. Hylas Chung instructed by Messrs. Tang & Tang for Plaintiff

Tang Tak Kung, Defendant in person being absent