LI YUEN LING AND ANOTHER v. TANG KWONG WAI THOMAS AND ANOTHER

LI YUEN LING AND ANOTHER v. TANG KWONG WAI THOMAS AND ANOTHER

The powers of attorney were invalid because they did not comply with the mandatory formal requirement of sealing under Power of Attorney Ordinance s2(1); therefore the instruments did not appear on their face to be duly executed so s23 CPO presumption did not arise; defendants failed to prove authority to bind the Bank and hence failed to show good title, entitling plaintiffs to rescind and recovery of deposits with interest.

Citation
LI YUEN LING AND ANOTHER v. TANG KWONG WAI THOMAS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Purchaser: Plaintiffs; Vendor: Defendants; Original Mortgagor/third Party: ABN Amro Bank N.V.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Case Number
HCMP673/2009
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Conveyancing and Property Ordinance / Court Determination on Title and Validity of Powers of Attorney (judgment)
Outcome
Originating Summons determined in favour of the plaintiffs: defendants did not show good title; powers of attorney invalid; Assignment did not bind the Bank.
Legal Topics
Validity of Powers of Attorney, Title to Land, Requisitions on Title, Presumption of Due Execution, Proof of Foreign Law
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Conflict of Laws Evidence Validity of Powers of Attorney Title to Land Requisitions on Title +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Purchaser

Defendants

Vendor

ABN Amro Bank N.V.

Original Mortgagor/third Party

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Conveyancing and Property Ordinance / Court Determination on Title and Validity of Powers of Attorney (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have shown good title to the property
  2. 2 Whether the powers of attorney were lawfully and validly executed by the Bank
  3. 3 Whether the Assignment executed by the attorneys bound the Bank

Ratio Decidendi

The powers of attorney were invalid because they did not comply with the mandatory formal requirement of sealing under Power of Attorney Ordinance s2(1); therefore the instruments did not appear on their face to be duly executed so s23 CPO presumption did not arise; defendants failed to prove authority to bind the Bank and hence failed to show good title, entitling plaintiffs to rescind and recovery of deposits with interest.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons determined in favour of the plaintiffs: defendants did not show good title; powers of attorney invalid; Assignment did not bind the Bank.

Orders

  • Declared that a good title has not been shown by the defendants to the Property in accordance with the Agreement
  • Declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind the Agreement