Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibitory order

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

WAN KOON SAU AND ANOTHER v. LO TAM SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1956/2022

The 1929 prohibitory order had not been re-registered as required by s.17 LRO and therefore prima facie ceased to have effect; in those circumstances, and having carried out substituted service with no appearance or objection, the court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the registration of the Prohibitory Order in respect of the Properties be vacated.
10 Mar 2021

LO WANG SANG v. CHAN KAP

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1569/2017

The Prohibitory Order had not been reregistered and therefore expired five years after 1938 under s17; the plaintiff established title, conducted searches and inquiries, and effected substituted service with no response; on that basis the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order the vacating of the registration of the 1938 Prohibitory Order.
10 Sept 2009

RE LI FAT

Citation

RE LI FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1078/2009

The Prohibitory Order registered in 1918 had lapsed under s17 of the Land Registration Ordinance because there was no re-registration within five years; s19 was inapplicable because there was no material showing a continuing lis pendens and the memorandum indicated the case was settled; the court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order vacatur of the registration and made no order as to costs.
14 Jun 2006

HUNG HEUNG KENG v. CHALLENGE WAY INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

HUNG HEUNG KENG v. CHALLENGE WAY INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP789/2006

The court held that the 1950 Prohibitory Order had ceased to have effect for want of re-registration under s17 of the Land Registration Ordinance and that the unspecified rights recorded in the memorial in favour of the Chungs were too vague to constitute enforceable equitable interests against a purchaser; accordingly the declarations sought were granted to clear the title.
14 Mar 1994

DOUGLAS LAM HO TAK v. LAM SHUN

Citation

DOUGLAS LAM HO TAK v. LAM SHUN<br>
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1273/1993

The prohibitory order registered on 19 June 1937 has, for lack of required re-registration under section 17 of the Land Registration Ordinance, ceased to have effect; the court will grant a declaration under District Court Ordinance s52 to that effect but will refuse the application to vacate the register entry under section 19 of the Land Registration Ordinance.
3 Jan 1991

FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1494/1990

The court found the risk of litigation arising from the 6 February 1925 Prohibitory Order to be fanciful rather than real and, applying the requirement that the vendor satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that any blot may safely be ignored, declared that the purchasers were not entitled to object to the title solely by reason of that Prohibitory Order.
7 Oct 1989

CHOW WAI LAN v. CHEUNG SIU FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW WAI LAN v. CHEUNG SIU FONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5218/1989

The court held that tracing orders in aid of a Mareva do not demand a higher standard of proof than the Mareva itself; the plaintiff had established a good arguable case, shown a real risk of dissipation and demonstrated exceptional circumstances (substantial claim, inadequate disclosed local assets and likelihood of foreign dealings), therefore a worldwide Mareva and ancillary tracing/disclosure orders should continue; the defendants' summons to discharge the orders was dismissed but limited time extensions for compliance were granted and the prohibitory order was extended for six weeks.

Hong Kong Case Law

WAN KOON SAU AND ANOTHER v. LO TAM SHING AND OTHERS

LO WANG SANG v. CHAN KAP

RE LI FAT

HUNG HEUNG KENG v. CHALLENGE WAY INVESTMENT LTD

DOUGLAS LAM HO TAK v. LAM SHUN

FUNG KWONG TAI TSO AND OTHERS v. KWOK YIU WING AND ANOTHER

CHOW WAI LAN v. CHEUNG SIU FONG AND OTHERS