Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Building licence

  • 31 May 2019

    WAN FAT SHING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR8/2016

    The Tribunal refused extension of time and leave to appeal because the applicants' delay was substantial and inexcusable, thereby raising the higher threshold of demonstrating a real prospect of success, which they failed to meet on the merits: prospects of obtaining building licences under the Small House Policy do not amount to an enforceable right "as of right" under section 12(c) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance where no licence was granted as at the resumption date; substitution of the executrix was permitted for two matters to validate proceedings; costs were awarded to the respondent.

  • 31 May 2019

    CHENG KAM v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    Citation
    [2019] HKLdT 38
    Court
    Lands Tribunal
    Case number
    LDLR12/2016

    Extension and leave to appeal were refused because the applicants' delay was substantial and inexcusable, triggering the higher threshold of demonstrating a real prospect of success, which they failed to do; prospects of obtaining building licences or relying on ding rights could not be treated as enforceable 'as of right' under section 12(c) LRO where no licence existed at the resumption date; substitution of the executrix was allowed for two deceased applicants to validate proceedings; costs ordered against applicants.

  • 26 Jun 2015

    CHAN KA CHING v. YIU SUI FONG

    Citation
    CHAN KA CHING v. YIU SUI FONG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4434/2014

    Even if a triable issue existed as to the formal validity of the DOR, the defendant demonstrated a good defence and absence of any real risk to title by reliance on root title documents (Government Lease, Deed Poll), the Building Licence, the DMC and Assignment, the registration of the DOR, STW's conduct and lack of objection, and s.13(4) where applicable; therefore requisitions were satisfactorily addressed and the plaintiff's summary summons must be dismissed.

  • 16 May 2014

    WAH HING STRATEGY COMPANY LTD v. TANG OI MAN

    Citation
    WAH HING STRATEGY COMPANY LTD v. TANG OI MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA16693/1999

    The Agreement and the Deed amounted to an illegal development scheme and are unenforceable; however, because the defendants did not pay the purchase consideration or construction costs and plaintiff advanced the purchase price and construction outlays, the court implies a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff so that the defendants hold the registered title as trustees; accordingly the power of attorney granted to Grand is void, the defendants are restrained from granting any P/A without the plaintiff's prior written consent, and the registration of the Deed of Development is to be vacat…

  • 15 Jan 2010

    LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION C OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICTNO. 19 TAI PO,NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION C OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICTNO. 19 TAI PO,NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5205/2008

    The court upheld the Master's decision and granted unconditional leave to defend because the defendants demonstrated arguable, bona fide defences: part‑performance (payments and possession) can overcome formal defects under section 5 via section 7 CPO, and alleged breach of a non‑alienation/building licence clause does not conclusively deprive Best Star of capacity to contract; late production of the building licence was not admitted absent special grounds but would not necessarily be determinative.

  • 28 Dec 2009

    TIU SUM FAT AND OTHERS v. SHUN SING DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TIU SUM FAT AND OTHERS v. SHUN SING DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1746/2005

    The agreements were held unenforceable because performance would necessarily involve making or continuing a misrepresentation to the Government (the nominee owner had falsely held himself out as true owner to obtain a small house building licence); plaintiffs and 1st defendant were in pari delicto (both had knowledge or were imputed with knowledge of the nominee arrangement) so plaintiffs cannot recover the deposits; locus poenitentiae failed because the illegal purpose had been substantially performed (building licence granted); claim against 2nd defendant dismissed as he neither received de…

  • 17 Jun 2000

    CHAN YIU KIT AND ANOTHER v. HOMEAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.

    Citation
    CHAN YIU KIT AND ANOTHER v. HOMEAST DEVELOPMENT LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA12520/1998

    The written mistake describing the lot was corrected to Lot No. 600A to reflect the parties' common intention; Clause 18's timelines were estimates but required commencement and completion within a reasonable time; no condition precedent of obtaining a building licence was proved or written into the agreement; by failing to obtain the licence and commence works within reasonable time the vendor put performance beyond its means and breached the contract; accordingly the purchasers validly rescinded and were entitled to return of deposit and to liquidated damages and stamp duty under the provis…

  • 28 Feb 2000

    CHOW YIM WOON v. LAM YUNG MING SARLINA

    Citation
    CHOW YIM WOON v. LAM YUNG MING SARLINA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA6379/1999

    The summons for summary judgment was dismissed because there were clear triable issues concerning the vendor's title and authority to sell, the timing and proof of title, the proper construction of clause 4, and the unresolved role of Joinrex which required trial determination; consequently summary disposal was inappropriate.