OR PUI KWAN v. SINO BRIGHT (H.K.) LTD

OR PUI KWAN v. SINO BRIGHT (H.K.) LTD

The applicants failed to show the original vendors retained any proprietary interest in the ROW because the assignments (together with s16 CPO) passed appurtenances with the land, the vendors had disposed of their remaining shares, and the ROW appears to be a common passage enjoyed by all co-owners; therefore there was no trustee interest to support a vesting order and the originating summons was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2311
Parties
Applicant: Or Pui Kwan; Applicant: Sino Bright (H.K.) Limited; Vendors: Mr Wu and Mr Yim
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 2021
Case Number
HCMP757/2021
Procedural Posture
Vesting Order Application (trustee Ordinance) / Judgment (ex Parte Application Dismissed)
Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Vesting Order, Right of Way, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Trustee Ordinance S45, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S16, Title Challenge
Source Language
EN
Property Trusts Conveyancing Civil Procedure Vesting Order Right of Way Deed of Mutual Covenant Trustee Ordinance S45 +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Or Pui Kwan

Applicant

Sino Bright (H.K.) Limited

Applicant

Mr Wu and Mr Yim

Vendors

Procedural Posture

Vesting Order Application (trustee Ordinance) / Judgment (ex Parte Application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a vesting order under s45(b)(iii) or s45(g) of the Trustee Ordinance should be made in favour of the applicants
  2. 2 Whether the original vendors retained any interest in the right of way such that they could be regarded as trustees
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had established that the vendors cannot be found

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to show the original vendors retained any proprietary interest in the ROW because the assignments (together with s16 CPO) passed appurtenances with the land, the vendors had disposed of their remaining shares, and the ROW appears to be a common passage enjoyed by all co-owners; therefore there was no trustee interest to support a vesting order and the originating summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Originating Summons dismissed