CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER

CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER

The execution page of the Bushell Assignment satisfied s.20(1) CPO on its face and the plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in s.23 CPO; the board resolution's phrase 'any one Director and any one Director' authorises any two directors (not only those present), and the statement in the Assignment that the signatories were 'duly authorized' by the board sufficed to show due execution, therefore the Assignment was valid and the defendants' claims succeed in the respects ordered.

Citation
CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: CHIONG STANLEY; 1st Defendant: LAM YIP HING; 2nd Defendant: LUI KIT CHUN
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
DCCJ4463/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (district Court) / Summary Judgment Hearing and Decision
Outcome
The plaintiff's summons for summary judgment is dismissed; the defendants' summons is granted in part and judgment entered for the defendants in specified paragraphs of the draft minutes of order; certain monetary figures and damages are to be assessed by the Court; costs ordered as nisi to be made absolute within...
Legal Topics
Execution of Company Documents, Presumption of Due Execution, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.20, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.23, Deposit Forfeiture, Requisition on Title, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Civil Procedure Execution of Company Documents Presumption of Due Execution Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.20 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.23 +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIONG STANLEY

Plaintiff

LAM YIP HING

1st Defendant

LUI KIT CHUN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (district Court) / Summary Judgment Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bushell Assignment was duly executed for the purposes of s.20(1) CPO
  2. 2 Whether s.23 CPO presumption of due execution was rebutted by the board minutes
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's requisition on title was justified and whether the deposit forfeiture and rescission were valid

Ratio Decidendi

The execution page of the Bushell Assignment satisfied s.20(1) CPO on its face and the plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in s.23 CPO; the board resolution's phrase 'any one Director and any one Director' authorises any two directors (not only those present), and the statement in the Assignment that the signatories were 'duly authorized' by the board sufficed to show due execution, therefore the Assignment was valid and the defendants' claims succeed in the respects ordered.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's summons for summary judgment is dismissed; the defendants' summons is granted in part and judgment entered for the defendants in specified paragraphs of the draft minutes of order; certain monetary figures and damages are to be assessed by the Court; costs ordered as nisi to be made absolute within...

Orders

  • Plaintiff's summons dismissed.
  • Judgment entered for the Defendants as per paragraphs (1) to (4), (8) and (12) of the draft minutes of Order on P.49-50 of Bundle A.