Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of property

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2023

XIE LI XIN v. LEGEND STAR WEALTH CREATION LTD (Company No. 2226263)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1595/2022

On the facts, having regard to the prior judgment establishing the fraudulent scheme, the pleaded omission to join Legend Star, Legend Star's restoration under the Companies Ordinance, and the absence of any defence, Legend Star is declared a constructive trustee of the Common Area and is ordered to execute a conveyance to assign the Common Area to the plaintiff within 14 days, with substitute execution by the plaintiff's solicitors permitted in default; no order as to costs was made.
25 Jul 2019

CHEUNG MAN YUEN v. CHAU WAN KAI JONAS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 991
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3353/2018

The court found the defendant's allegations were implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous steps or evidence, and amounted to an attempt to delay vacant possession; the defendant failed to establish a realistic prospect of success to set aside the regular default judgment, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the default judgment stands.
28 Sept 2018

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. SANWA TRADING (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1805/2016

The court found a genuine triable issue exists as to the identity of the parcel conveyed (Original CPS2 on the DMC plan versus the Void Area shown on the Assignment plan) and that the defendant had demonstrated a good defence; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate and the Order 14 summons was dismissed.
19 Jul 2018

WAN KIN SHING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CITY CENTRE BUILDING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA354/2015

The court concluded that D2's post‑pleading disposals did not eliminate P's claim: adverse possession is non‑registrable so non‑registration is irrelevant, assignment after commencement is likely ineffective to defeat P's claim, and D2 must remain a party for trial and case management; therefore both summonses were dismissed.
23 Dec 2015

HUI YAU PING v. SZE LOONG YAU AND OTHERS

Citation

HUI YAU PING v. SZE LOONG YAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1923/2011

The claimant failed to prove the existence of enforceable oral agreements governing the share transfers or that the assignment of the Workshop was procured by misrepresentation; the Family Deed operated to release administration claims; the court accepted that the Mother owed Sze HK$3,000,000 and ordered payment by the Administrator with interest; accordingly the claimant's claims and the children's counterclaim and Linda's trust claim failed, while Sze's claim succeeded.
21 Feb 2011

KINGCITY INVESTMENT LTD v. SPRING VICTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KINGCITY INVESTMENT LTD v. SPRING VICTORY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ561/2009

The court found the owners' 16/11/99 agreement allocated both the numbered car parking spaces and their adjacent 'Reserved Areas' according to the agreed ratio; Plan B enlarged Spring Victory's allocated Reserved Areas at Kingcity's expense and thus deviated from the owners' agreement; Kingcity did not validly consent to that change but LLT was not liable because it had discharged its duty to inform by openly copying approvals and documents and the change was objectively patent; consequence: Spring Victory must transfer the disputed CPS No.17 and Reserved Areas 17a and 17b to Kingcity or pay…
21 Dec 2010

WU WAI SUM STELLA v. MAN TING CHU

Citation

WU WAI SUM STELLA v. MAN TING CHU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1742/2008

Section 38A empowers the Court to order execution of the reassignment by the Registrar; the Court will not impose conditions that constitute new or collateral claims outside the judgment or the proceedings, and because the Defendant's reimbursement demands were not pleaded or part of his counterclaim they cannot be imposed as a condition to execution, therefore the Plaintiff's application is granted and costs are awarded.
21 Apr 2009

SENG SUNG DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. HONG KONG RESOURCES INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SENG SUNG DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. HONG KONG RESOURCES INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2231/2007

Implied procurement obligation: an implied term exists that the defendant shall procure Seng Sun Xiamen to deliver and assign the units (to give business efficacy). The defendant's pleaded implied margin (3-5%) is rejected as inconsistent with express area warranties. There was no common mistake about inclusion of fire exit/staircase; units as built do not conform to contract or Annexure 3; Annexure 3 approval is now unobtainable but enlargement to Annexure 2 is practicable provided adjoining units not sold; accordingly defendant must procure delivery per Annexure 2.
16 Apr 2009

LAI MING LAN v. SHING YIU MING formerly t/a YIU SHING CONSTRUCTION CO

Citation

LAI MING LAN v. SHING YIU MING formerly t/a YIU SHING CONSTRUCTION CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2789/2007

Defendant failed to discharge the contractual obligation to notify the Plaintiff of the date and steps for completion after the premium was paid; Defendant's evidence of inability to contact Plaintiff was not credible given available contact details and attempted communications; therefore Plaintiff entitled to repayment of HK$414,000 with interest and costs and Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
30 Sept 2008

MICHAEL JOHN SHORT AND ANOTHER v. CHAN FEI YIN

Citation

MICHAEL JOHN SHORT AND ANOTHER v. CHAN FEI YIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5023/2007

Reading the Assignment together with the matrimonial Consent Order shows the transfer was made in consideration of the Defendant's payment obligations and the release of guarantees; that consideration was significant and there was no real prospect a trustee in bankruptcy could set aside the transfer under s.49, therefore the vendor's title was not defectively exposed to a real risk of successful challenge and the Registrar's order was correctly affirmed; appeal dismissed.