24 May 2023
The court held that the Assignment took effect on 3 November 1994 upon receipt of the Housing Authority's letter confirming payment of the premium and removal of the restriction, and granted the declaratory relief sought accordingly.
2 Mar 2023
The 2012 assent was void from inception because it contravened s.17B(1) of the Housing Ordinance by effecting a transfer of HOS property without prior Housing Authority consent and payment of premium; a void instrument incapable of affecting land is not registrable under the Land Registration Ordinance, and the court has inherent jurisdiction to declare non-registrability and to vacate the registration; accordingly the registration of the assent is vacated and a declaration of non-registrability is made.
30 Jul 2021
The execution of the Notice of Severance by the deceased was not an 'alienation' prohibited by s.17B because converting the form of co-ownership (joint tenancy to tenancy-in-common) is a family/private arrangement that does not defeat the purpose of the Home Ownership Scheme; s.17B prohibits positive acts that allow owners to take unfair advantage of the Scheme's discount to make a quick profit, which was not shown here.
23 Jun 2016
The court inferred from the Subject to clause and the surrounding evidence that the common intention of the parties to the 2nd assignment was that it would not take effect until the premium was paid to the Housing Authority; accordingly the 2nd assignment only became effective after payment and the plaintiffs have shown good title; however the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently answer the defendant's requisition.
7 Sept 2015
The court found the assignment was intended to take effect on 28 July 1994 when the purchase price was paid with mortgage finance; the earlier date on the assignment was an erroneous or escrow date. Because the assignment took effect after the Housing Authority's confirmation dated 28 July 1994, it was valid and the plaintiff proved title; the sale and purchase agreement was ordered to be specifically performed.
17 Feb 2015
On the facts the appellant's statutory declaration and the other conveyancing evidence were insufficient to remove a real risk that the deceased had deposited title documents as security (creating an equitable mortgage) given the circumstances (all originals missing, aborted sale agreements, charging orders). The requisition on title was properly made and not satisfactorily answered; the purchaser was therefore entitled to rescind and recover deposits. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the judge below.
3 Dec 2008
The requisition was adequately answered because evidence of the parties' common intention and conveyancing undertakings established that the 1998 assignment did not take effect until the premium had been paid; therefore there was no breach of Section 17B and the title was good.
1 Jun 2001
Even if the deposition of title deeds created an equitable charge void under s17B, that statutory voidness affects only the agreement to create the charge and does not nullify the separate contractual obligation to repay the loans; moreover the deficiencies under s18(2) were technical, caused no prejudice to defendants, and the court properly exercised its discretion under s18(3) to enforce the repayment agreements, so the Registrar's refusals were set aside.