Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registration of writ

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2025

HA CHI KUEN v. LAU BOND INTERNATIONAL LTD (formerly known as INSTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2124
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP804/2025

The Amended Writ did not claim any proprietary right or seek any order affecting the Subject Property; it sought monetary relief and rescission of the tenancy agreement only, therefore it was not a registrable lis pendens under the Land Registration Ordinance and the attempted registration must be cancelled and removed; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
31 Mar 2022

THAPA BISHNU MAYA v. CHAN SHIU LAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP230/2021

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole asserted ground — that the existence and registration of the District Court writ and water seepage litigation rendered the title bad — was not properly raised: the writ is not a registrable instrument affecting title and counsel ultimately conceded that the litigation did not affect title; accordingly the vendor was not shown to have repudiated or failed to give good title.
17 Nov 2015

CITY TARGET LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG

Citation

CITY TARGET LTD v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1806/2015

Because the original claimant abandoned any proprietary claim to the property and only seeks monetary damages, any alleged 2% interest can only attach to monetary recovery not to the land; the registered writ therefore is not a lis pendens affecting the land and registration must be vacated; costs awarded to applicant.
17 Apr 2015

OCTOPUS CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD v. KRISHOM HOLDING LTD

Citation

OCTOPUS CAPITAL INVESTMENT LTD v. KRISHOM HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA775/2015

Because the writ concerns only a personal contractual right and so falls outside registrable matters under ss.2(1) and 14 of the Land Registration Ordinance, the defendant's registration or attempted registration was wrongful; the court therefore has jurisdiction to vacate such registration (including instruments pending registration) and to grant a declaration and indemnity costs given the defendant's unreasonable conduct.
8 Nov 2013

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER

Citation

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2140/2006

Defendants failed to show good cause under s.19 to vacate the registration because the trial judge accepted plaintiffs' case and made a binding judgment and alternative order for specific performance which accrued on the 2006 default; alleged unfairness from post-agreement market rise and alleged prior representations did not justify vacating the lis pendens; application dismissed.
23 Feb 2012

TSIM TAK SUN v. LAM KWOK YIN

Citation

TSIM TAK SUN v. LAM KWOK YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2217/2011

The writ in HCA 984/2011 sought monetary relief and is not a lis pendens; therefore it cannot be registered in the Land Registry under the Land Registration Ordinance; the application to register was refused, the request for adjournment was denied for lack of basis, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
18 Apr 2000

CHINA WEAL LTD. v. LAM SAU WAH

Citation

CHINA WEAL LTD. v. LAM SAU WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12281/1997

The judge found the plaintiff's account not credible on the balance of probabilities: absence of any accounting entry or documentary step showing a company beneficial interest, documentary note 'charge to my account', lack of protective measures, and the defendant's conduct of ownership supported that no resulting trust arose; payments constituted repayment of a loan to Deng and the defendant had the beneficial interest; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and the defendant succeeded on her counterclaim.
11 May 1999

FAIRVIEW PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. v. TOP EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

FAIRVIEW PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. v. TOP EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/1998

The writ was properly registrable as a lis pendens because the plaintiff's claim for a mandatory injunction to remove unauthorised structures and reinstate the property plainly affects an interest in the land, and registration is necessary to notify subsequent purchasers of the actual breach and the relief sought, thereby protecting the plaintiff's enforcement rights under the DMC.
29 Sept 1988

KING LIFE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG TSUN WEI

Citation

KING LIFE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG TSUN WEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1894/1988

Because the 1987 action named only the father and Coin Base (the holder of the legal estate at the time of registration) was not a party, any order in that action cannot bind Coin Base; therefore the registration of the writ as a lis pendens against the property was improper and must be vacated.