16 Jul 2019
The court granted the vesting order because the applicant established beneficial entitlement to the Lots and demonstrated that no personal representative had been appointed such that the legal estate remained unvested, enabling the court to exercise its section 45 Trustee Ordinance jurisdiction to vest legal title in the applicant.
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.
12 Oct 2018
Because the applicants proved their entitlement by the registered Succession to Property, the trustee remained the registered owner but died without any personal representative and no party objected, the court exercised its power under section 45(e) to vest the trustee's registered half share absolutely in the applicants.
18 Apr 2016
The court exercised its power under section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance to make a vesting order because there is no personal representative of the deceased trustee who was recorded in the registered memorial and the memorial, together with the historical succession documentation, justified vesting the specified undivided one‑third share of the lots in the applicant as trustee for the beneficiary Chun.
18 Dec 2015
The court was satisfied that the applicant, as successor under the registered Succession to Property, was entitled to the subject share, that there was no one to be served, and therefore a vesting order under section 45 should be made removing the trustee and vesting the legal estate in the applicant.
15 Jul 2014
The court, satisfied that the applicants succeeded to the property and that the registered trustee died without any personal representative, exercised its discretion under section 45 of the Trustees Ordinance to vest the beneficial estate and interest in the property in the applicants to enable them to deal with it.
21 Jan 2014
The court was satisfied that the applicants are the entitled beneficiaries, that the trustee (Lam Kiu) held legal title only and is deceased with no probate or administrator and no one to be served, and therefore a vesting order under s.45 Trustee Ordinance should remove the trustee and vest the legal estate of the half share in the applicants as tenants in common in equal shares.
31 Jul 2001
The court declined to grant the declarations sought and refused to dispose of the matter on default because key declarations could not properly be made in the absence of the Secretary for Justice and there was material uncertainty (occupation, adverse possession risk and incomplete evidence about title and dates); accordingly the summons was adjourned sine die with costs reserved.
14 Apr 2000
Because the trustee died intestate in 1995 without letters of administration and the land in the Succession to Property memorial was shown by official correspondence to be the same as the subject title, the court concluded the statutory requirements of s.45(e) Trustee Ordinance were satisfied and ordered the property to vest absolutely in the applicant.