11 Jan 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the defendant was dead or to show a sufficient interest in the defendant's estate; inferences from the age of a historic lease were insufficient and reasonable enquiries required to establish death and succession were not made.
31 May 2000
On the evidence that the mortgagor's successors (from 1973) and the Plaintiff (since 1996) remained in possession without any demand or disturbance by the mortgagee or successors for over twenty years, the mortgage is incapable of subsistence or unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance and a declaration should be made that the land vests in the Plaintiff free from that mortgage.
29 Jul 1999
The appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the annexed plan showed Lot No.424 as 4.64 acres; the clear written Schedule stating 0.15 acre and Crown rent 15 cents controls the construction of the Block Crown Lease absent clear evidence of contrary intention; the trial judge's factual conclusions that the plan could not be reliably reconstructed and that the Schedule describes the grant correctly are upheld, so the appeal is dismissed.
13 Jul 1998
The Vendor failed to comply with Clause 6 because the certified true copy certified on 27 August 1997 reflected a Block Crown Lease that was already incomplete and therefore was not a certified copy of a complete and legible Block Crown Lease of D.D. No.106; accordingly good title was not shown and the Purchasers are entitled to rescind the Agreement and recover the deposits and part payment with interest and to a lien on the property.
18 Jun 1998
The vendor failed to prove good title because the document produced was a certified copy based on a plain photocopy rather than the original Crown Lease and the certifier had not examined the original; the vendor also failed to produce an occupation permit or satisfactory evidence from the Building Authority, and District Lands Office correspondence was insufficient. Consequently forfeiture of the purchasers' deposit was wrongful and the deposit must be repaid with related reliefs.
31 Oct 1996
The Tribunal construed the 1905 Block Crown lease and its Schedule to hold the subject lots were not demised as agricultural/garden ground but as building land permitting houses as of right; the penultimate covenant is a building-approval covenant not a user covenant; accordingly compensation must be assessed on the basis of building land value and, on the available comparable evidence, the open market value at the date of resumption (17 March 1994) was $290,214.
13 Mar 1983
The Court held that the descriptions in the Schedule are merely descriptive and do not themselves restrict use; the express covenant prohibiting erection of buildings without the Crown's licence is the operative restriction; no implied covenant restricting change of use could be implied under the BP Refinery tests; no custom was proved; accordingly the storage of steel girders (as pleaded) did not constitute a breach of the Block Crown Lease and the declarations below were correctly granted.
14 Aug 1978
The Schedule describing the lot as "Agricultural" is part of the lease and, read with the restrictive covenant, the land was demised as agricultural ground such that it could not be converted to building use without licence; therefore compensation was correctly assessed on an agricultural basis and the appeal is dismissed.