WONG CHUNG KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG YIK TUNG

WONG CHUNG KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG YIK TUNG

Because the registered orders had been registered more than five years before the sale agreement and were not re-registered, section 17 of the Land Registration Ordinance meant they ceased to have effect as against the subsequent sale; accordingly they did not render the plaintiffs' title defective and the plaintiffs' reliance on s 17 constituted an adequate answer to the requisition on title, so good title was shown.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2722
Parties
Vendor (1st Plaintiff): WONG CHUNG KEUNG; Vendor (2nd Plaintiff): LO WAI LING; Purchaser (defendant): CHEUNG YIK TUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
HCMP799/2018
Procedural Posture
Vendor Purchaser Summons (s 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Order granted: plaintiffs' requisition answered and good title shown
Legal Topics
Title, Requisition on Title, Registration Lapse and Priority, Section 17 Land Registration Ordinance, Good Title
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Land Registration Title Requisition on Title Registration Lapse and Priority Section 17 Land Registration Ordinance Good Title

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG CHUNG KEUNG

Vendor (1st Plaintiff)

LO WAI LING

Vendor (2nd Plaintiff)

CHEUNG YIK TUNG

Purchaser (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Vendor Purchaser Summons (s 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registered charging/prohibitory orders registered more than five years before the sale ceased to have effect under s 17 Land Registration Ordinance and therefore did not render title defective
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently answered the defendant's requisition on title
  3. 3 Whether s 17 affects validity of registered orders or only their priority vis-à-vis subsequent interests

Ratio Decidendi

Because the registered orders had been registered more than five years before the sale agreement and were not re-registered, section 17 of the Land Registration Ordinance meant they ceased to have effect as against the subsequent sale; accordingly they did not render the plaintiffs' title defective and the plaintiffs' reliance on s 17 constituted an adequate answer to the requisition on title, so good title was shown.

Court Disposition

Order granted: plaintiffs' requisition answered and good title shown

Orders

  • Plaintiffs granted declaration that the defendant's requisition on title has been sufficiently answered and that the plaintiffs have shown a good title to the suit property