Read the full judgment text of HCMP 001493/1990 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 January 1991 before Godfrey J.
Conveyancing – vendor and purchaser summons – mortgage dated 25 August 1931 – last instalment of mortgage money due in 1942 – whether mortgage barred by limitation – Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) s.19(1) – 20-year limitation period – whether mortgagee can be found – whether court has jurisdiction to order discharge of mortgage on payment into court – absence of equivalent to Law of Property Act 1925 s.50 in Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap 219) – legislative reform suggested – Limitation Ordinance s.19(1) provides that no action shall be brought to recover any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage on property after 20 years from the date when the right to receive the money accrued – effect that mortgagee's right to foreclose, sue for possession and sue for principal are barred and mortgagee's title extinguished – Lewis v. Plunket [1937] 1 All E.R. 530 applied – time can only run afresh upon written acknowledgment or payment of interest or capital – no such acknowledgment or payment here – court has no jurisdiction to make an order discharging the mortgage analogous to s.50 of the Law of Property Act 1925 – incumbrance where time for payment accrued more than 20 years ago and no suggestion of acknowledgment or part payment should not be regarded as a blot on the title – declaration that the 1931 mortgage is no longer subsisting or capable of taking effect and constitutes no valid objection to the vendors' title – declaration operates only between the parties and does not bind the mortgagee – vendors do not seek costs – no order as to costs.
Legal issues: Whether the 1931 mortgage is barred by limitation under s.19(1) of the Limitation Ordinance · Whether the court has jurisdiction to order discharge of a mortgage on payment into court
Outcome: Declaration granted that the mortgage dated 25 August 1931 is no longer subsisting or capable of taking effect and constitutes no valid objection to the vendors' title; no order as to costs as the vendors did not seek costs.