Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proof of title

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2023

曾官球對卓春林

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 53
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD587/2023

Respondents' asserted defences lacked a real prospect of success because the applicant produced stamped, consistent tenancy agreements establishing ownership and tenancy relationships, and the respondents' 2014 unsigned/unstamped transfer documents conflicted with earlier sworn statements and were not probative; consequently there was no basis to grant permission to appeal or to set aside the earlier Rule 15 judgments.
4 Sept 2019

ASIA RICH INCORPORATION LTD v. CHIN HUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2187
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1995/2018

Although a reasonable doubt was raised by discrepancies in identity indicia, the cumulative evidence — the 2002 statutory declaration (more than 15 years old attracting the s13(4) presumption), the weighty statutory declaration of Mrs Hayashi, Mr Cham's explanation of a clerical HKID error, supporting documentary evidence and the similar Far East Mansion transactions — dispelled the doubt such that there was no real risk of a subsisting claim; accordingly the vendor showed good title and the requisition was satisfactorily answered.
17 Dec 2018

KINGDOM MILES LTD v. EVER CRYSTAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2017

The certified copy of the Conditions of Grant constituted sufficient proof of the Government lease under s13(1) CPO; the absence of the two historical letters did not create any real risk of an encumbrance on title and the vendor had adequately and candidly answered requisitions; accordingly the purchaser was not entitled to refuse completion and the Court of Appeal allowed the vendor's appeal, setting aside the recorder's declarations to the contrary.
28 Dec 2017

LIN WAI LAI v. HUNG MEI LAI

Citation

LIN WAI LAI v. HUNG MEI LAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1310/2017

The Vendor failed to produce clear and cogent secondary evidence of the 8 February 1957 Letter and did not satisfactorily answer the requisition by the scheduled completion; time remained of the essence; the Purchaser validly accepted the Vendor's repudiation on 16 June 2016 thereby terminating the Agreement; forfeiture of the deposits by the Vendor was wrongful; specific performance was refused as inequitable given the delay; damages and declarations were awarded to the Purchaser.
5 Jun 2015

CHEUNG FUK YU DANNY AND ANOTHER v. VU POI VAN

Citation

CHEUNG FUK YU DANNY AND ANOTHER v. VU POI VAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2817/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to establish an arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success: the court had properly considered the DLO and BD documents and found unresolved risk of enforcement by the BD, and the defendant could not raise unpleaded out-of-time arguments at the leave stage; accordingly payment of HK$290,000 was ordered to be paid out to the plaintiffs and costs to plaintiffs on a party-and-party basis.
23 Oct 2013

DRAGON TOP INVESTMENTS LTD v. ABLE HK HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

DRAGON TOP INVESTMENTS LTD v. ABLE HK HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ824/2013

Defendant failed to answer both title requisitions by the scheduled completion date of 28 February 2013; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescind the Agreement and recover the deposits (HK$155,000) and title investigation costs (HK$12,000) with interest and to a declaration of lien. The court rejected defendant's contention that completion was extended and found the defendant did not properly answer the requisitions; although estoppel by conduct was arguable it was not pleaded or raised in the replies and did not prevent the finding on failure to answer requisitions. Consequently secur…
26 Jun 2012

JONES, MARK DEAN v. BOHMANN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

JONES, MARK DEAN v. BOHMANN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2623/2011

The Assignment was duly executed because Article 20(a)'s requirements were satisfied by the corporate director Pro (Nominees) being represented by its director whose signature and company chop demonstrated presence and execution; s 23 CPO presumption applies because the instrument, on its face, appeared duly executed; the misspelling in the Stamp Certificate was a mere typographical error that did not affect the validity of stamping or title. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove repudiation or title defect and the originating summons is dismissed.
1 Dec 2011

LAU KAM SHING AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG CHUEN HON

Citation

LAU KAM SHING AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG CHUEN HON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP504/2011

The court held that under s.13 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance the Plaintiffs were required only to produce title documents extending back 15 years from the date of the agreement; the Deed of Gift dated 15 October 1992 satisfied that requirement, the alleged defects were at most hypothetical given long lapse of time and absence of competing claim, and therefore the Plaintiffs established good title and sufficiently answered requisitions 1 and 2.
16 Nov 2011

LAI WAI AND OTHERS v. LEE YUET YUNG PAT AND OTHERS

Citation

LAI WAI AND OTHERS v. LEE YUET YUNG PAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1524/2011

The court accepted the Immigration Department explanation that identity card numbers could legitimately change during the re-registration from paper to laminated cards and, upon a direct comparison of signatures written stroke by stroke, found the signatures attributed to Wong in the 1961 and 1972 documents sufficiently similar to conclude they were made by the same person; accordingly the plaintiffs had satisfactorily answered the requisitions and proved good title.
3 Nov 2011

NG SAU WAH SYLVIA v. KWAN LAI FAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG SAU WAH SYLVIA v. KWAN LAI FAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1565/2011

The statutory declaration by the handling solicitor provided a sufficiently clear and cogent explanation of the loss, contents and attempts to find the Power of Attorney and therefore adequately answered the Purchasers' requisition as to that document; the prior Agreements to sell and evidence of stamp duty were not documents required to prove title and thus the vendor was not obliged to produce them; accordingly the Purchasers' requisitions were satisfactorily answered and the vendor has shown good title.