Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied easements

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2007

RE JOHN McDONNELL QC

Citation

RE JOHN McDONNELL QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1532/2007

The court granted admission under s27(4) LPO because the application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal was a substantial matter and the applicant's expertise and experience in land matters meant he could make a significant contribution; the size of the local senior counsel pool and incomplete detail about enquiries did not outweigh the CFA factor; accordingly the applicant was approved, admitted and enrolled to practice for the specified CFA hearing.
15 Jun 2007

LOYAL LUCK TRADING LTD v. TAM CHUN WAH

Citation

LOYAL LUCK TRADING LTD v. TAM CHUN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP444/2006

The court held that a vehicular right of way over the Defendant's land arose by implication under the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows at the latest on 31 January 2000 (and could likewise have arisen by operation of s16 CPO); the alleged prior illegality did not prevent creation or enforcement of the easement where the Plaintiff did not have to rely on the illegality to establish the right; the claimed easement was not excessive so as to deprive the Defendant of reasonable use; accordingly declaration and injunction were 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.
10 Feb 1983

DR FRANKLIN LI AND ANOTHER v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC

Citation

DR FRANKLIN LI AND ANOTHER v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4909/1980

The court held that an easement to use the common toilets on the 15th floor was to be implied because it was necessary to give effect to the common intention that the units be used as doctors' consulting rooms; damages were assessed as the difference between the price plaintiffs would have paid (on the adjusted area and contract rate) and the price obtained by Crocus from Kerry, less stamp duty and legal fees, with interest from the date of loss of right (3 April 1982) at 14% and costs to the plaintiffs.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE JOHN McDONNELL QC

LOYAL LUCK TRADING LTD v. TAM CHUN WAH

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

DR FRANKLIN LI AND ANOTHER v. CROCUS PROPERTY INC