25 Oct 2013
The registered Division of Property dated 24 April 1912, having been entered in the Land Registry, takes priority under LRO ss3 and 4 and, together with the expiry of limitation, establishes that the respondent has shown a good title to Mong Tseng Wai Lot No 136 in DD129 despite absence of an earlier registered transfer from the government lessee.
17 Oct 2005
The Tribunal held the Applicant had no legal estate or compensatable interest on the resumption date because the Head Lease was not validly executed on behalf of the Tong (one manager did not sign and managers must act unanimously) and the Head Lease and sub‑leases were unregistered and therefore null and void against the subsequent bona fide purchaser Mass Ocean; accordingly the Applicant was not entitled to claim under item 1 or item 2(b) and the application is dismissed.
31 Aug 2001
The affirmation was properly struck out because it constituted evidence not a pleading; the defence disclosed no reasonable defence on the pleadings because any equitable interest of Mr Chan was subsumed in the Chinese written agreement which was not registered and therefore void against the plaintiff's properly registered legal charge under s.3(2) LRO; consequently the plaintiff's legal charge had priority and judgment for vacant possession against the 2nd defendant was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.
13 Apr 2000
The Formal Sale and Purchase Agreement, registered on 4 April 1997 and relating back to 13 March 1997, created a registrable equitable lien for the Purchaser which took priority over the 2nd Defendant's express declaration of trust because the trust document was not registered until 4 September 1998; by reducing the unwritten equity to a written, registrable trust the 2nd Defendant subjected herself to the Land Registration Ordinance and could not defeat the earlier registered lien.
21 Nov 1990
The Court held that the defendants' prior right to use the Main Roof was a registrable but unregistered interest and therefore was null and void as against the plaintiff, a subsequent bona fide purchaser who registered the 1988 Assignment; no constructive trust was imposed on the plaintiff because the plaintiff's conscience was not affected; however the defendants succeed against the vendor (Sui Ying) on their covenant/derogation claims, entitling them to declarations and damages to be assessed.
7 Apr 1976
Regulation 17A was ultra vires but Regulation 18B (save for the invalid paragraph) was valid and the Commissioner lawfully had discretion under Regulation 17(1)/18B to refuse or hold in abeyance applications lodged after he had in effect decided to impose a ceiling even though publication followed; a mere lodgement of a compliant application does not create an immediate vested right to registration. On the evidence the respondent was entitled to registration of 34 vehicles; appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed.