Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Crown lease

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2017

THE SHEK O DEVELOPMENT CO, LTD v. CHEUNG LIN HO AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE SHEK O DEVELOPMENT CO, LTD v. CHEUNG LIN HO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP106/2015

The court granted joinder and allowed amendments because SODC demonstrated that the Government has a direct interest in the factual and legal issues (surveys/licenses, alleged governmental possession, and written acknowledgements) that are common to the actions and necessary for complete adjudication; merit of SJ’s substantive defence is not a prerequisite to joinder and the issues are best determined with SJ before the court.
28 Nov 1997

CHENG SHU KEUNG and Another v. SO WING KING

Citation

CHENG SHU KEUNG and Another v. SO WING KING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3281/1997

The vendors failed to adduce clear and cogent secondary evidence of the Crown lease's conditions; because s13(1) required production of the Crown lease or a certified copy and the available secondary evidence did not disclose the terms of grant, the vendors did not show good title and the court ordered relief in accordance with the originating summons.
18 Mar 1997

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/1996

The correspondence constituted a limited waiver, clear and unequivocal only insofar as necessary to permit the specific development then proposed (Interocean Court); it did not amount to a general waiver of the 35 foot height restriction for the duration of the lease, therefore the judge erred in holding otherwise and the appeal is allowed.
10 Sept 1996

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

REAL HONEST INVESTMENT LTD. v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP902/1996

The 1948 correspondence from the Colonial Secretary and the Building Authority constituted an express, general waiver of the 1923 restrictive covenant; the Crown was estopped from enforcing the height/single‑house restriction and the covenant is no longer of any effect in respect of redevelopment (subject to normal planning/building controls).
28 Mar 1995

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

FAIRFAX LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP794/1994

The court refused the plaintiff's declaration because it found no legal waiver or acquiescence by the Crown: knowledge of past breaches and permitting redevelopment elsewhere did not legally extinguish the restrictive covenant and it would not be unconscionable to enforce it on the plaintiff's site.
15 Feb 1993

WONG WAI MAN V. TANG TAT CHI

Citation

WONG WAI MAN V. TANG TAT CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4172/1992

A copy of the Crown Lease certified by the Land Office satisfied s.13(1) despite limited legibility because the certifying Assistant Registrar was the proper officer to certify; where the certified copy is illegible the vendor may adduce secondary evidence (the counterpart, the Land Office register card and recitals in other title documents) to prove the contents; absence of a separate Indenture of Extension was not fatal where the Land Office records and endorsements demonstrate extension to 999 years; on this evidence the vendor proved good title beyond reasonable doubt.
8 Apr 1992

GOLD CHECK INVESTMENTS LTD v. STAR INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

GOLD CHECK INVESTMENTS LTD v. STAR INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP592/1992

Non-production of the Crown Lease (or contract incorporating the Conditions of Sale) went to the root of the title; therefore the purchaser was entitled to object after the contractual requisition period and the vendor failed to show good title in accordance with the Agreement of 31 January 1992; judgment for the purchaser and costs ordered against the vendor.
12 May 1989

LOUIS KWAN-NANG KWONG AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

LOUIS KWAN-NANG KWONG AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/1989

The Court held that on the agreed and found facts the letting of the cinema amounted to the letting of a going concern (premises plus fixtures, fittings, equipment and the benefit of the licence and protected goodwill) at rentals exceeding rateable value; those circumstances convert the transaction into carrying on a "business" for s.14 purposes and the receipts were properly assessable to profits tax; apportionment was not ordered due to lack of evidence and no basis to isolate a taxable proportion.
29 Jul 1987

MEXX CONSOLIDATED (FAR EAST) LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

MEXX CONSOLIDATED (FAR EAST) LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2421/1986

The court held that the primary use of the suit premises was industrial: design, pattern-making, prototype manufacture, use of machinery, substantial materials and labour and final quality control/packing formed an integrated manufacturing process; accordingly the plaintiff's use fell within the Deed of Variation industrial/godown user covenant and the plaintiff was not in breach.
31 Oct 1979

HANG WAH CHONG INVESTMENT CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

HANG WAH CHONG INVESTMENT CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/1978

The 1953 correspondence amounted to at least an implied consent limited to the height specified (roof of Hillview Apartments); Building Authority approval under the Buildings Ordinance does not waive lease conditions; the Director of Public Works can act in distinct capacities and, given Special Condition 21's absolute discretion, lawfully withhold approval and require payment of a premium; consequently refusal to approve redevelopment as proposed was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.