20 Nov 2015
The court was satisfied the applicant is the beneficial owner and is sui juris, there is no one to be served and no evidence of competing claims, and the trusteeship no longer serves a practical purpose; accordingly under section 45 Trustee Ordinance the deceased Father was removed as trustee and the entire legal estate was vested absolutely in the applicant.
26 Jun 2015
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.
3 Jul 2013
The judge found no actionable misrepresentation or mistake: the Agreement expressly described the entire lot, clause 3 addressed the Northern Portion, the solicitor explained the Agreement, and the vendor intended to sell the whole property; accordingly the Agreement was enforceable and specific performance was ordered while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
21 Sept 2012
The letter did not create or affect any registrable proprietary interest under the Land Registration Ordinance Cap.128; its notation under 'deeds pending registration' caused unjustified prejudice and constituted an abuse of the registration system, entitling the plaintiff to an order removing the letter and expunging any references and to costs on the indemnity scale.
18 Dec 2008
Because the plaintiff's pleaded cause of action is purely contractual and she accepted the defendant's repudiation, she no longer had a proprietary interest in the property capable of supporting registration under the Land Registration Ordinance; therefore the lis pendens and writ were not properly registrable and the application to vacate them upon payment into court succeeded.
30 Sept 2008
Rule 3 of the House Rules (prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the estate including private units) was invalid because the manager exceeded the authority granted by the registered Stage VII DMC: the manager's power to make rules was limited to rules relating to common parts and access areas and could not validly prohibit conduct within owners' units; Rule 3 also conflicted with Clauses 1, 3(1) and 3(2) of the DMC guaranteeing exclusive use and access rights; non-registration of the House Rules did not by itself render them void because the registered DMC referred to House Rules and owners are…
12 Jun 2007
Defendant demonstrated good title: DBS Bank was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice whose title was validly assigned to the defendant and is immune from challenge by Weld‑Tech's liquidators given absence of evidence of fraudulent preference; the defendant's solicitors properly answered the purchaser's requisition and the originating summons must be dismissed.
16 Feb 2007
The agreement of 8 July 2004 was void because the parties were not ad idem and the defendant was induced by misrepresentations and was under a material mistake exacerbated by the solicitor's legal executive failing to explain English terms; the second agreement lacked consideration and the plaintiff had not paid the full deposit, so only $20,000 was repayable; registrations should be vacated and costs awarded to defendant.
9 Feb 2007
The Committee's decision was within its statutory powers and not Wednesbury unreasonable: the statutory provisions do not require reading Part Ib as equivalent to Part II; the evidence supported the Committee's finding that activities were training/education rather than hands-on physiotherapy requiring a doctor's referral; therefore refusal to refer for inquiry and refusal of leave were justified.
25 Jan 2005
The mark is an ordinary laudatory epithet and does not possess inherent distinctiveness under s10(2)(a); GDF's evidence of prior use was minimal and there were no 'other circumstances' to establish factual distinctiveness under s10(2)(b); accordingly the Court allowed the Registrar's appeal and refused the Part B registration for rice wines.