17 Dec 2010
KING PROSPER TRADING LTD v. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
- Citation
- KING PROSPER TRADING LTD v. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL56/2009
URA's decisions refusing to purchase based on conveyancing advice that the applicant lacked a good title were commercial in nature and not generally amenable to judicial review; on the facts the applicant did not have a good title or a possessory title to Property 2 or 3 (Property 2 was a common part under the DMC and exclusive possession rights had been extinguished when the developer disposed of its last undivided share), so the judicial review application was dismissed.