TANG KWOK CHEUNG AND TANG CHAI WOH as Managers of TANG KING WO TSO v. CITY WAVE DEVELOPMENT LTD

TANG KWOK CHEUNG AND TANG CHAI WOH as Managers of TANG KING WO TSO v. CITY WAVE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Because the defendant had indicated rescission, never sought completion, and had been dissolved (and effectively could not seek specific performance), there was no real possibility of an order for specific performance; therefore the Agreement did not affect the land and the court properly exercised its inherent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1985
Parties
Plaintiff (customary Trust): Tang King Wo Tso; Defendant (dissolved Company): City Wave Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Case Number
HCMP2176/2021
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Miscellaneous Proceedings (land Registration) / Judgment
Outcome
Originating Summons granted in part; registration of the Agreement vacated and declaration made that the Agreement is no longer registrable under the LRO; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Vacation of Registration, Registrability Under the Land Registration Ordinance, Specific Performance, Striking Off and Restoration
Source Language
en
Land Law Company Law Civil Procedure Land Registration Vacation of Registration Registrability Under the Land Registration Ordinance Specific Performance Striking Off and Restoration

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang King Wo Tso

Plaintiff (customary Trust)

City Wave Development Limited

Defendant (dissolved Company)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Miscellaneous Proceedings (land Registration) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 9 May 1998 Agreement should be vacated from the Land Registry
  2. 2 Whether the Agreement is registrable under the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap.128)
  3. 3 Whether the court can decide the matter summarily in absence of acknowledgement of service

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant had indicated rescission, never sought completion, and had been dissolved (and effectively could not seek specific performance), there was no real possibility of an order for specific performance; therefore the Agreement did not affect the land and the court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vacate the registration and declare the Agreement not registrable under the LRO.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons granted in part; registration of the Agreement vacated and declaration made that the Agreement is no longer registrable under the LRO; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Order that the Agreement dated 9 May 1998 be vacated from the Land Registry
  • Declaration that the Agreement is no longer registrable under the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap. 128) with the phrase in (2) replaced by 'A Declaration'