CHENG SIN YAU AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM PIU DICKY

CHENG SIN YAU AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM PIU DICKY

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant the declarations because the declarations sought were in substance advisory: there was no justiciable dispute or threat of enforcement, and granting such relief would risk opening the floodgates; accordingly the application for declarations was dismissed despite the statutory arguments about expiry of registration and limitation.

Citation
CHENG SIN YAU AND ANOTHER v. WONG KAM PIU DICKY
Parties
1st Plaintiff (vendor): Cheng Sin Yau; 2nd Plaintiff (vendor): Cheng Sin Hei; Defendant (purchaser): Wong Kam Piu Dicky
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 March 2015
Case Number
HCMP98/2015
Procedural Posture
Vendor Purchaser Summons Under S 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap 219) / Hearing and Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for declarations refused; declarations not granted
Legal Topics
Declaratory Relief, Blot on Title, Registration and Re Registration of Judgments/orders, Expiry of Registrations Under S17 Cap 128, Enforceability of Judgments Under S4(4) Cap 347, Discretionary Remedies
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Civil Procedure Land Registration Limitation Declaratory Relief Blot on Title Registration and Re Registration of Judgments/orders +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheng Sin Yau

1st Plaintiff (vendor)

Cheng Sin Hei

2nd Plaintiff (vendor)

Wong Kam Piu Dicky

Defendant (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Vendor Purchaser Summons Under S 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap 219) / Hearing and Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant declarations that registered charging orders and judgments do not constitute a blot on title
  2. 2 Whether the declarations sought are advisory/non-justiciable and therefore inappropriate
  3. 3 Whether statutory time limits (s17 Cap 128 and s4(4) Cap 347) remove any live legal consequence such that relief would be advisory

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant the declarations because the declarations sought were in substance advisory: there was no justiciable dispute or threat of enforcement, and granting such relief would risk opening the floodgates; accordingly the application for declarations was dismissed despite the statutory arguments about expiry of registration and limitation.

Court Disposition

Application for declarations refused; declarations not granted

Orders

  • Declined to grant the declarations sought; application dismissed
  • No order as to costs