Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of land

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2025

HO MAN LAP, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HO WAI HUNG, DECEASED AND OTHERS v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHEUNG ALIAS CHAN YAM FOOK ALIAS CHAN YAM FOOK ALIAS CHAN YAM FUK, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 117
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5716/2015

The court accepted the 1973 stamped handwritten Assignment as a valid transfer of the land to the plaintiffs (and D4) on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the document itself, corroborative historical correspondence, expert surveying evidence, the absence of substantive opposition, and the consenting/defaulting conduct of defendants; accordingly declaratory relief and rectification of the land register were appropriate.
26 Oct 2022

RE WONG YIU FAI

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1197
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3010/2022

With the trustee deceased and no personal representative appointed, the applicant satisfied the condition in section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance and the court was empowered and should exercise that power to make a vesting order in the applicant's favour; the order was therefore made in terms of paragraph 1 of the Originating Summons dated 11 August 2022.
8 Aug 2022

ASPAROUH IANEV DIMITROV as administrator of the estate of KALOIAN IANEV DIMITROV (Deceased) v. DOMINIC TAK MING LAU also known as LAU TAK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1146
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV568/2020

The Court held that the Charging Order registered as a nisi on 23 November 2017 had priority over the Assignment registered on 19 January 2018 by operation of ss 3(1) and 5A of the LRO and the relation back principle; an alleged oral gift of land was ineffective without the statutory deed formalities and the 2nd Defendant failed to prove any proprietary or promissory estoppel on the evidence before the judge; the judge did not err in deciding disputed facts on affidavit evidence where parties had agreed a paper determination; and the order for sale was a proper exercise of discretion.
27 Nov 2020

CHENG MEI LING v. LAM SIU CHOR SHAREN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2958
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3301/2016

The court found on the facts that the loans were made by the defendant to the plaintiff personally, the Acknowledgement was valid and binding, and the parties agreed a set-off by which the plaintiff transferred her half interest in the property to the defendant in settlement of the HK$1,000,000 debt; the set-off agreement was supported by consideration in the form of effective discharge of the debt by payment in kind and was not void as past consideration; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for HK$1,000,000 failed, the defendant's counterclaims succeeded for repayment of outstanding loans and…
28 Sept 2020

ASPAROUH IANEV DIMITROV as administrator of the estate of KALOIAN IANEV DIMITROV (deceased) v. DOMINIC TAK MING LAU also known as LAU TAK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP887/2018

The Charging Order Absolute retained priority over the later Assignment because it related back to the date of the Charging Order Nisi; the defendants failed to prove any beneficial interest in the Property (gift, matrimonial entitlement, or estoppel) with credible contemporaneous evidence; the 1st Defendant misled the court and the defendants' conduct suggested an attempt to defeat the charging order; accordingly it was just and equitable to enforce the Charging Order and order sale; applications to vacate or set aside the Charging Order Absolute were dismissed.
2 May 2017

LAND ZONE LTD v. LAND ZONE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAND ZONE LTD v. LAND ZONE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10/2008

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 1997 Tenancy Agreement and the alleged Licence were sham/not proved, that the Assignment to LZL was valid and registered, and that LZL was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly LZL holds title and is entitled to possession and injunctive relief while SGL and Madam Chen were trespassers; counterclaim dismissed and most monetary claims rejected for lack of evidence.
6 Jan 2016

SIU BAN & SONS LTD v. SUN TAI HING GARMENT MAKING CO LTD

Citation

SIU BAN & SONS LTD v. SUN TAI HING GARMENT MAKING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA31/2015

The plaintiff failed to prove non-payment and non-completion on the balance of probabilities; the company’s financial records and subsequent conduct were consistent with the sale having been treated as completed, and possession of title deeds and the property by the vendor/custodian did not establish that the Assignment was void, so the claim to set aside the Assignment was dismissed.
14 Nov 2007

CHU WAI MING ALEXANDER AND ANOTHER v. NG YAU YEE CONNIE

Citation

CHU WAI MING ALEXANDER AND ANOTHER v. NG YAU YEE CONNIE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2449/2007

The Assignment dated 20 December 1965 expressly recited that the Assignee was allotted the premises pursuant to an agreement for distribution and the Assignment itself was made over 15 years before the 2007 sale contract; in the absence of any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption in section 13(4) the recital stands as sufficient proof of title and the Plaintiff has proven good title to the Property, so the Plaintiff's application is granted.
12 Mar 2007

KUNG MING TAK TONG CO LTD v. PARK SOLID ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KUNG MING TAK TONG CO LTD v. PARK SOLID ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/2005

The appeal is dismissed because Wheeldon v Burrows cannot be used to imply an easement between co-owners in a multi-storeyed building where rights are governed by covenants; there was no necessary implication or proprietary privilege incorporated into the assignments or by s.16(1) CPO given the lack of exclusivity, certainty and identifiability of the claimed right; and clause 3(a) of the DMC did not extend to the Existing Entrance Lobby and New Staircase created later and exclusively owned by the 2nd defendant.
20 Dec 2002

WONG HO WING v. WONG HO KWAN

Citation

WONG HO WING v. WONG HO KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4823/2001

On the found facts the younger brother promised to transfer his one-third interest in consideration of being made joint tenant of the Kowloon flat; equity imposes a constructive trust because it would be unconscionable for the younger brother to retain the interest; s.5 CPO does not defeat constructive trusts; therefore the one-third interest is held on constructive trust for the elder brother and must be assigned to him.