9 May 2025
The applicants complied with the statutory procedure by paying the requisite sum into court and publishing the required advertisement under the Limitation Ordinance; no person applied to join or asserted an interest; therefore the court must declare under s12A of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance that the registered mortgage memorial no longer encumbers the property.
10 Sept 2024
Summary judgment was granted because the 1st defendant’s asserted tenancies and estoppel arguments relied on unregistered or inadmissible instruments and contained material inconsistencies rendering his evidence not reasonably capable of belief; the Land Registration Ordinance nullified the asserted long leases against the plaintiff as registered owner; unrelated adverse possession proceedings did not defeat the plaintiff’s right to seek possession; therefore no real or bona fide defence existed.
14 Jun 2024
The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer material requisitions (notably the Vendor lacked effective power to sell the parking space absent rectification of the will/probate by completion date and had not produced a certified carpark layout plan); that failure amounted to repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 was not a penalty and the Purchaser was entitled to liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000; the Purchaser is entitled to indemnity for any estate agent commission if it becomes payable; equitable lien is subsumed by the security paid…
14 Jun 2024
The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions (in particular the Vendor's lack of clear power to sell the parking space under the Will), thereby committing a repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 providing liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000 was not a penalty and is enforceable; the Purchaser is entitled to liquidated damages, interest and an indemnity in respect of any estate agent commission payable; equitable lien need not be declared because security had been paid into court.
22 Sept 2022
The appeal was dismissed and the charging order nisi was correctly made absolute because the defendant failed to adduce any credible or documentary evidence that the beneficial interest had passed to the purported purchaser, the alleged payments were inconsistent with the provisional agreement, multiple charging orders registered after the purported completion date undermined the completion claim, and the issues raised related to creditor priority which did not prevent making the charging order absolute.
11 Jan 2021
The writ did not affect title or create any interest in the defendant's land and therefore was not registrable as a lis pendens under the Land Registration Ordinance; the registration was an abusive tactical use of the land registration system to impede a sale and warranted immediate vacatur and indemnity costs, with the plaintiff's solicitors personally liable due to lack of legal basis and proper advice.
18 Nov 2020
The Endorsement of Claim shows the plaintiff's claim against the 8th defendant is for an alleged unpaid sum for construction work and does not concern any proprietary interest in the Subject Lot; therefore the writ was not registrable as a lis pendens. Given the plaintiff's delay and the potential abuse of the registration system, costs of the application were awarded to the 8th defendant on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
24 Aug 2020
Plaintiff proved exclusive physical possession and intention to possess of the Subject Area since about 1983, satisfying the requirements for adverse possession; more than 20 years elapsed before commencement of proceedings, therefore plaintiff has established a possessory title and the defendant’s paper title has been extinguished pursuant to s.17 of the Limitation Ordinance; however, that possessory title does not entitle automatic registration as owner in the Land Registry.
9 Jan 2020
The interlocutory summonses were dismissed and the short-term injunction discharged because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate serious questions to be tried on their claims (express unregistered grant, lost modern grant, public dedication, proprietary estoppel) and damages were an adequate remedy with defendant able to pay; licensees lacked locus to claim easement by lost modern grant and the express grant pleaded was unregistered and unsupported by evidence, so mandatory interlocutory relief was refused.
15 Apr 2019
The court was satisfied there was no personal representative of the deceased trustee and that the applicants provided sufficient evidence and undertakings; accordingly the court granted the vesting orders sought under s45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance and allowed the application to proceed ex parte.