FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER

FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER

The court found the risk of litigation arising from the 6 February 1925 Prohibitory Order to be fanciful rather than real and, applying the requirement that the vendor satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that any blot may safely be ignored, declared that the purchasers were not entitled to object to the title solely by reason of that Prohibitory Order.

Citation
FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (vendor): Fung Kwong Tai Tso; Manager (of Plaintiff): Fung Kam Cheung; Manager (of Plaintiff): Fung Run Cheong; Defendant (purchaser): Kwok Yiu Wing; Defendant (purchaser): Wan Juen Hing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 1991
Case Number
HCMP1494/1990
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance Cap.219 / Judgment (high Court 3 January 1991)
Outcome
Vendor's declaration granted; purchaser not entitled to object to title solely by reason of Prohibitory Order dated 6 February 1925.
Legal Topics
Title Defects, Re Registration of Judgments, Prohibitory Order, Vendor and Purchaser Objections
Source Language
EN
Property Law Land Registration Conveyancing Equity Title Defects Re Registration of Judgments Prohibitory Order Vendor and Purchaser Objections

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Kwong Tai Tso

Plaintiff (vendor)

Fung Kam Cheung

Manager (of Plaintiff)

Fung Run Cheong

Manager (of Plaintiff)

Kwok Yiu Wing

Defendant (purchaser)

Wan Juen Hing

Defendant (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance Cap.219 / Judgment (high Court 3 January 1991)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 1925 'Prohibitory Order' registered in the District Office constitutes a blot on title
  2. 2 Whether the Judgments Act 1839 s.4, as extended by s.17 of the Land Registration Ordinance Cap.128, renders the 1925 Order void as to purchasers for non re-registration every five years
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of litigation affecting purchasers' interests arising from the Prohibitory Order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the risk of litigation arising from the 6 February 1925 Prohibitory Order to be fanciful rather than real and, applying the requirement that the vendor satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that any blot may safely be ignored, declared that the purchasers were not entitled to object to the title solely by reason of that Prohibitory Order.

Court Disposition

Vendor's declaration granted; purchaser not entitled to object to title solely by reason of Prohibitory Order dated 6 February 1925.

Orders

  • Declaration that the purchaser is not entitled to object to the title offered by the vendors by reason only of the Prohibitory Order dated 6 February 1925.
  • No order as to costs (vendor did not seek costs).