CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER

CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER

The Assignment was prima facie duly executed and explicitly stated the signatories were authorised; the board minutes did not prove the contrary and therefore the statutory presumption under section 23 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance applied; consequently leave to appeal was refused and the lower court's decision upholding forfeiture of the deposit stands.

Citation
CHIONG STANLEY v. LAM YIP HING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: CHIONG STANLEY; 1st Defendant: LAM YIP HING; 2nd Defendant: LUI KIT CHUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 October 2009
Case Number
HCMP1370/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal (oral Hearing); Leave Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave refused; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Requisition on Title, Presumption of Due Execution, Authority to Execute Deeds Under Board Resolution, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S23, Forfeiture of Deposit, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing and Property Civil Procedure Appeal Requisition on Title Presumption of Due Execution Authority to Execute Deeds Under Board Resolution Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S23 Forfeiture of Deposit +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIONG STANLEY

Plaintiff

LAM YIP HING

1st Defendant

LUI KIT CHUN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Leave to Appeal (oral Hearing); Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of due execution under section 23 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance applies to the Assignment Memorial
  2. 2 Whether the board minutes rebut the statutory presumption of due execution
  3. 3 Whether the Assignment was validly executed so as to justify forfeiture of the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The Assignment was prima facie duly executed and explicitly stated the signatories were authorised; the board minutes did not prove the contrary and therefore the statutory presumption under section 23 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance applied; consequently leave to appeal was refused and the lower court's decision upholding forfeiture of the deposit stands.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; leave refused; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
  • District Court judgment in favour of the defendants on their counterclaim (forfeiture of the deposit) is affirmed.