Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Production of crown lease

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 1999

IP FOO KEUNG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PAK KAI

Citation

IP FOO KEUNG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PAK KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5179/1998

The court concluded that an agreement for a Crown lease falls within the definition of Government lease and that secondary evidence of such an agreement is admissible under s.13(1) CPO in the absence of a contrary intention; because sufficient secondary evidence existed, the plaintiffs' claim failed and the claim was dismissed.
18 Feb 1997

KA CHUNG MAN v. LAU YIN LING

Citation

KA CHUNG MAN v. LAU YIN LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4098/1996

Defendant failed to produce the completed Crown lease and the correct Government Notices and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions; letters from the District Lands Office were found to operate as a valid certificate of exemption under the applicable Buildings Ordinance provisions and delegations; on those findings the purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreements and recover their deposits and costs.
16 Jan 1996

BMC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. STAR WIN CO LTD

Citation

BMC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. STAR WIN CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2878/1995

The agreement, read with Section 13(1) CPO and the incorporated conditions, required the vendor to produce the Crown Lease; no contrary intention was shown by the agreement; the records produced from the Public Records Office and the statutory declaration were insufficient to prove the Crown Lease or the Conditions of Sale and therefore did not establish "good title" as required; accordingly the plaintiff's declarations and orders in the originating summons were granted.
8 Mar 1990

CHAN KAM SING AND ANOTHER v. LAM PING PING GRACE

Citation

CHAN KAM SING AND ANOTHER v. LAM PING PING GRACE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3276/1989

The summons was dismissed because the statute (section 13 as cited) entitles the purchaser to production of the Crown lease or a certified copy; the plaintiffs failed to produce a certified copy and the uncertified photostat did not constitute sufficient evidence of title or authenticity, and Halifax does not permit dispensing with an express statutory requirement to produce the deed.

Hong Kong Case Law

IP FOO KEUNG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PAK KAI

KA CHUNG MAN v. LAU YIN LING

BMC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. STAR WIN CO LTD

CHAN KAM SING AND ANOTHER v. LAM PING PING GRACE