8 Oct 2010
The Court held the pleaded family Arrangement amounted to an alienation or agreement to alienate beneficial interests in the HOS flat within the meaning of s17B and was therefore void; accordingly the plaintiffs were barred from asserting beneficial ownership and the appeal was allowed on the preliminary issues.
15 Mar 2006
Because at first instance the main issue actually litigated was resolved in favour of the defendants (Mr Peng) and the plaintiffs won the matters up to 27 January 2004, the plaintiffs are entitled to costs up to that date while the defendants are entitled to costs incurred after that date; accordingly the order nisi was made absolute and the plaintiffs were awarded the costs of written submissions.
15 Mar 2006
Because the principal issue tried at first instance was resolved in the plaintiffs' favour and the defendants had raised that issue, the plaintiffs are entitled to costs up to 27 January 2004; the defendants are entitled to costs incurred after that date; the order nisi is made absolute and plaintiffs are awarded costs of the written submissions.
17 Jun 2004
The loan agreement and related documents were procured by duress and were void; the plaintiff's payment to HSBC (HK$9,050,000) and its involvement were tainted by illegality and threats so it came with unclean hands; consequently equitable subrogation was refused and both the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed with costs to follow events.
16 Nov 1999
Agreements purportedly made by an unauthorized agent (Cheng Kwok Fai) and accepted through solicitors who were not appointed (Messrs. Ho & Chan) are not binding on the Plaintiff; accordingly the agreements are null and void as against the Plaintiff, the Defendants are not entitled to register them, and the court will restrain registration and vacate existing registrations in specified actions.
16 Nov 1999
The agreements were executed without authority and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not appointed solicitors for those transactions; accordingly the agreements are void as against the plaintiff, defendants are restrained from registering them, and existing registrations in specified actions must be vacated; no costs awarded as the plaintiff did not seek damages or costs.
16 Nov 1999
The agreements were executed without authority and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not appointed for those transactions; therefore the agreements are not binding on the plaintiff, defendants are not entitled to register them, and the court will grant declarations, restrain registration and vacate existing registrations in specified actions.
16 Nov 1999
The Court held that Cheng Kwok Fai lacked authority to execute the agreements and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not appointed solicitors for those transactions; accordingly the 14 agreements are null and void as against the Plaintiff, the Defendants are not entitled to register them, the Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief and ordered vacatur of specified registrations.
16 Nov 1999
The agreements were declared absolutely null and void as against the plaintiff because Cheng Kwok Fai had no authority to execute them and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not appointed solicitors for the plaintiff; accordingly defendants were restrained from registering the agreements and existing registrations in specified actions were ordered vacated; no costs were awarded.