寶盈國際有限公司 對 曾耀霖

寶盈國際有限公司 對 曾耀霖

Court held plaintiff failed to establish under LRO s19 that the defendant had not prosecuted the underlying litigation bona fide and thus could not cancel on that ground, but the registered D&C had remained as 'Deeds Pending Registration' and in any event exceeded five years such that the registration was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2617
Parties
Plaintiff: SURICH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (寶盈國際有限公司); Defendant: TSANG YIU LAM (曾耀霖)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Case Number
HCMP708/2021
Procedural Posture
Application to Cancel Land Registration Under Land Registration Ordinance / Lis Pendens / Interlocutory Hearing on Originating Summons (hcmp)
Legal Topics
Lis Pendens, Land Registration Ordinance S17 S19 S20, Adverse Possession / Squatter's Title, Inherent Jurisdiction to Remove Stale Registrations, Procedural Propriety of Remedies
Source Language
ch
Property Law Land Registration Civil Procedure Lis Pendens Land Registration Ordinance S17 S19 S20 Adverse Possession / Squatter's Title Inherent Jurisdiction to Remove Stale Registrations Procedural Propriety of Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SURICH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (寶盈國際有限公司)

Plaintiff

TSANG YIU LAM (曾耀霖)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Cancel Land Registration Under Land Registration Ordinance / Lis Pendens / Interlocutory Hearing on Originating Summons (hcmp)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant prosecuted the underlying litigation bona fide
  2. 2 Whether registration of the defendant's Defence & Counterclaim (D&C) constituted lis pendens and lost effect after five years under LRO s17
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff can cancel registration under LRO s19 or by the court's inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Court held plaintiff failed to establish under LRO s19 that the defendant had not prosecuted the underlying litigation bona fide and thus could not cancel on that ground, but the registered D&C had remained as 'Deeds Pending Registration' and in any event exceeded five years such that the registration was ineffective under LRO s17; accordingly the court, exercising LRO s17 and its inherent jurisdiction, cancelled the registration of the D&C in respect of the 17 parcels and made a provisional order to become absolute in 14 days with no order as to costs.