10 Sept 2019
Given the unchallenged documentary evidence that the trustee was the purchaser-trustee, that he died in 1967, that no will or grant of representation exists and the trusteeship was never removed, the Court was satisfied that a vesting order under s45(e) was appropriate and granted the land to the applicant absolutely.
27 Feb 2019
The Assent operated as an assignment conveying legal and beneficial interests in excess of intestacy entitlements and therefore constituted a voluntary disposition inter vivos chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty at the higher Scale 1 rate (HK$16,650); the Deed was not chargeable and s29AL and s27(5) exemptions did not apply.
15 Jun 2017
The presumption of resulting trust applied because the defendants provided the purchase funds and the plaintiff failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities; contemporaneous evidence and witness credibility favoured the defendants, so the plaintiff held the share on resulting trust and defendants were not liable to pay the claimed HK$430,000; additionally the court found the HK$450,000 paid by the 3rd defendant satisfied any claim in any event.
10 Aug 2005
There is a real dispute of fact about whether the loan was discharged by the sale and the handwritten receipt is ambiguous; therefore summary judgment is inappropriate and the case must proceed to trial.
7 Feb 1985
The Collector's assessment complied with the Stamp Duty Ordinance and became final after the statutory period; the defendant failed to prove the necessary elements of estoppel (no clear promise or representation inducing reliance and detriment), therefore the Collector can rely on the assessment and judgment is entered for the plaintiff.
18 Jun 1981
Appeal allowed. A single one of two administrators does not have power to bind the estate by a contract to convey immovable property so as to permit completion by conveyance without the concurrence of the co-administrator or a court order under s.54; a contract entered into before a grant by a person who had no title as administrator did not bind the estate on subsequent grant unless the doctrine of relation back operated (which requires the pre-grant act to have been done in a representative capacity and for the benefit of the estate); here the pre-grant contract was not validated by the lat…
11 Sept 1968
Plaintiffs failed to prove either the alleged December 1962 oral agreement or the authenticity and execution of the 15 January 1966 written agreement; the 13 February 1963 conveyance is valid and passed title to the defendant; accordingly the plaintiffs' action is dismissed and the defendant is entitled to possession and nominal damages for trespass ($40).