HONG KONG LAND LAW SECOND EDITION Sarah Nield CHINA & HONG KONG STUDIES [SRB me UCPL Bio LONGMAN PAXPublished by Longman Asia Ltd 18/F, Cornwall House Tong Chong Street Quarry Bay Hong Kong and associated companies throughout the world © Longman Asia Ltd 1992 First published 1992 Second edition 1997 Conditions of Sale All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishers. Produced by Longman Asia Ltd, Hong kong ISBN 962 00 2143 6 URBAN SOUNCIL OuBLIC UBRARIES —-— The publohers poly ito use Paper manufactured ‘rom sustainable oreatsPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION (The pace of life in Hong Kong is fast and developments in land law are no exception, Over the past four years, since the first edition of this book was published, much has happened. (There have been the usual developments in the law that one might expect in any jurisdiction, although many of these changes reflect influences peculiar to Hong Kong. The territory's imminent transition to a Special Administration Region of China is evident, particularly in relation to New Territories land.) Also, now that the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance has been well and truly assimilated into conveyancing practice, there can be detected an appreciation of its far reaching implications. (Law reformers have been busy considering whether Hong Kong should adopt a title registration system. The existing deeds registration system has served the territory well but perhaps it is now time for modernisation as we approach the 21st century, At the time of writing, a bill has been published and subject to extensive debate, but legislative time has been short and it has not yet been enacted. It is understood, however, that the new legislative session may well see the enactment of a revised bill. ‘The management of multi-unit developments has also come under scrutiny. So many buildings in Hong Kong are dependent on effective legal structures to regulate both their ownership and management by more than one owner. ‘Thus it is not surprising that this complex area of law has drawn both legislative and judicial attention. This new edition tries to reflect these developments. There are new chapters on the Land Titles Bill and Multi-Unit Developments. The legislative uncertainty that has surrounded the progress of the Land Titles Bill has not made planning this new edition easy. It would have been ideal to have delayed publication until the new bill had been enacted, but as the timing, and even the possibility, of enactment, has been so uncertain it was decided to go ahead with publication with an overview of the existing proposals. Hopefully this new chapter will provide a useful introduction to the concept of title registration and the structure of the proposed Hong Kong version. The new chapter on multi-unit developments has een easier to compile: there is so much to relay in this area; both in terms of legislation and case law. = ‘The new edition incorporates new case law both in Hong Kong and overseas. As I have retumed to live and work in England this updating has only been made possible with the help of those still in Hong Kong, Particular thanks on this score must go to both Judith Sihombing and Michael Wilkinson, who have been so helpful and generous with their time and resources. The updating process has also provided an opportunity for me to return to Hong Kong on several occasions but not since May 1996, thus the law is stated as at that date. Despite my return to England I remain captivated by Hong Kong itself and its unique laws governing land. I hope that this book will engender that same interest in others. SARAH NIELD OCTOBER 1996PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION Students of Hong Kong law have had for many years to rely on textbooks from other jurisdictions. They have thus not only had to deal with understanding the law but also with translating the law from another jurisdiction into the Hong Kong position. Fortunately this problem is being addressed with the increasing number of textbooks being produced on Hong Kong law. This book is intended to help fill the gap in the area of land law. ‘There is little research available on land law in Hong Kong so a lot of the research that went into this book felt a little like treading in the dark. The temptation is to start with the English position and then chart the differences. ‘Thus an attempt has been made to try and point out the differences between the law in Hong Kong and England and to make cross-reference to the equivalent English statutory provisions where relevant. This will help the student who wishes to use this book in conjunction with one of the standard English works. However, there are so many differences appearing between English land law and the law in Hong Kong that in some areas it is more useful to look at other common law jurisdictions. A concerted effort has therefore been made to look at the position in other common law jurisdictions where this seemed helpful. ‘This book is intended for students and thus its aim has been simplicity. The format of the book is also intended to assist the student. So often it is helpful to illustrate a point by reference to a case so that the law can be seen in context. For this reason short extracts of the case have been incorporated into the text and reference made to the salient points of the judgment. These extracts are not intended as a substitute for reading the case report itself, However, where the case is unreported, as so many Hong Kong land law cases are, it is appreciated that the student may have difficulty in tracking down the full report. This book would never have scen the light of day without the help of many other people. There have been my colleagues, Robyn Martin who encouraged me to undertake the project, and Judith Sihombing who made so many helpful comments on the early drafts. Although I managed to type the text with my two fingers, the office staff at the Law Faculty at Hong Kong University have been very patient in printing the numerous drafts and the final manuscript. The editors at Longman have had a mammoth job in making sense of that final manuscript. But perhaps the biggest thank you must go to my family and in particular my children who had to put up with the trauma that goes into writing a book. Last but not least the law is stated as at March 1991. Unfortunately it has not been possible to incorporate all the changes in the law since that date. SARAH NIELD DECEMBER 1991CONTENTS Preface lo the Second Edition Preface to the First Edition Table of Cases Table of Legislation INTRODUCTION What is Land Law? Classification of Property Sources of Hong Kong Land Law Physical Limits of Land Concept of Land Ownership Equitable Estates and Interests PRIORITY: THE DOCTRINE OF NOTICE Introduction Doctrine of Notice Bona Fide Purchaser of Legal Estate for Value Without Notice Notice Deficiencies of the Doctrine of Notice PRIORITY: LAND REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, Introduction Concepts of Registration Mechanics of Registration ‘What is Registrable? Effect of Registration LAND TITLES BILL a Introduction History of Title Registration Principles of Title Registration The Land Registry ‘The Effect of Registration Overriding Interests Registrable Matters Dealings with and Transmissions of Registered Land Rectification and Indemnity 37 45 48 49 52 58 74 75 78 82 87 91 93HONG KONG LAND LAW vi 5.1 5.2 5.3 54 5.5, 6 61 6.2 63 64 65, 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.7 10.8 FORMALITIES AT LAW ~ Introduction Deeds — Section 4 Documents in Writing — Sections 3 and 5 Oral Agreements — Sections 4(2) and 6 ‘The Conveyancing Perspective FORMALITIES: THE INTERVENTION OF EQUITY Introduction Part Performance The Rule in Walsh v Lonsdale Resulting and Constructive ‘Trusts Proprietary Estoppel ADVERSE POSSESSION Introduction, Possession and Title Limitation Periods Adverse Possession Leasehold Land FUTURE INTERESTS Introduction Vested and Contingent Interests Reversions Remainders Executory Interests Rule Against Perpetuities Rules Against Inalienability Rule Against Accumulations SETTLEMENTS AND TRUSTS FOR SALE Introduction, Strict Settlements Trusts for Sale Chinese Customary Trusts CO-OWNERSHIP Introduction Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common Contrasted The Four Unities Creation of Co-ownership Severance Termination of Co-ownership Tenancies by Entireties Coparcency 95 97 107 110 116 120 139 158 163 71 181 182 184 186 188 191 199 200 209 212 219 228 229 231 241 244 258 2651 11.1 11.2 113 14 11.5 11.6 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 16 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 LEASES Introduction Lease Essentials Types of Leases Relationship of Landlord and Tenant Remedies for Breach of Covenants ‘Termination of Leases GOVERNMENT LEASES AND SHORT TERM TENANCY AGREEMENTS Introduction Crown and Government Leases Short-term Tenancy Agreements EASEMENTS, Introduction Characteristics of Easements Acquisition of Easements Extent of Use Termination of Easements Easements and Similar Rights LEASEHOLD COVENANTS Introduction ‘The Original Parties Assignees Subtenants LAND COVENANTS Introduction Covenant Terminology ‘The Burden ~ Who Can Be Sued? ‘The Benefit - Who Can Take Action? Modification and Extinguishment of Covenants MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Introduction Multi-ownership Structures Regulating Co-owners’ Rights Enforcement of Deeds of Mutual Covenant Management of the Building Interrelationship of Management Structures CONTENTS 266 276 279 289 296 302 309 318 325 338 340 342 344 347 351 362 364 365 367 378 391 395 399 422 436HONG KONG LAND LAW viii 17.5 18 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Index MORTGAGES Introduction The Nature of Mortgages The Rights of the Mortgagor Mortgagee’s Rights and Remedies Discharge of Mortgages LICENCES > Introduction Types of Licence Revocation of Contractual Licences Licences by Estoppel Personal or Proprietary Interests? 441 447 464 485, 487 489 501 502 503TABLE OF CASES A Ketley Ltd v Scott [1980] CCLR 37; [1980] 130 NIJ 749, 457 ‘Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1990] 2 WLR 832; [1990] 2 WLR 145; [1990] 2 HIKLR 84, 43-44, 45,47, 460 Abbey National Building Society v Maybeech [1985] Ch 190, 294 Abbey National Building Society v Moss [1993] NPC 153, 264 Active Keen Industries Lid v Fok Chi Keong [1994] 1 HKLR 396, 405 A-G of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate (Queen’s Garden) Ltd [1987] AC 114, 105, 145, 148 AG v Melhado Investment Ltd [1983] HKLR 327; [1983] 2 HKC 211, 306 AG v Pon Yup Chong How Benevolent Association (1992) HCt MP No 1896 of 1991, 200 AG Securities v Vaughan [1988] 3 WLR 1205, 272 Aie Company Ltd v Kay Kam Yu (1994) HCt No A48 of 1991, 51 Alder v Blackman [1953] 1 QB 146, 276 Aldin v Latimer Clark Muithead & Co [1894] 2 Ch 437, 281 Alpenstow Ltd v Regalian PLC [1985] 1 WLR 721, 105 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, 417 American Express International Banking Corp v Hurley [1985] 3 All ER 564, 473, 479 Ample Treasure Ltd v Eight Gain Investment Ltd [1992] 1 HKC 457, 70-71 Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd v Berkley House (Docklands) Development Ltd [1987] 2 EGLR 172, 16 Andrews v Partington (1791) 3 Bro CC 401, 194, 195 Annen v Rattee (1985) 273 Est Gaz 503, 240, 247 Ansalt Nybro v Hong Kong Resort Co Ltd [1980] HKLR 76, 58 Antoniades v Villiers [1988] 3 WLR 1205, 272 Arlesford Trading Co Ltd v Servansingh [1971] 1 WLR 1080, 351 Ashburn Ansalt Ltd v Arnold [1989] 1 Ch 1; [1989] AC 1, 92, 129, 275, 499-500 Ashely Guarantee Ple v Zacaria [1993] 1 WLR 62, 465, 466 Austerberry v Corporation of Oldham (1885) 29 Ch D 750, 367 Avon Finance v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281, 458 Bailey v Barnes [1894] 1 Ch 25, 476 Baker v Baker (1993) 25 HLR 408, 152-153 Ballard’s Conveyance, re [1937] Ch 473, 374, 386 Banco Exterior Internacional v Mann [1995] 1 All ER 936, 460-461 Bank of Baroda v Rayerel (1995) 27 HLR 387, 460 Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133, 129 Barclays Bank v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180, 47, 81, 127, 458, 459 Barclays Bank Plc v Hendricks (1995) CLY 2365, 264 Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd (1988) 57 P&CR 216, 283-284 Barton v Morris (1985] 1 WLR 1257, 252 Basham Dec’d, re [1986] 1 WLR 149B; [1986] Ch 1498; [1986] 1 WLR 1948; [1986] 1 WLR 1498, 144, 146, 149, 153 Battison v Hobson [1896] 2 Ch 403, 62 Baxter v Four Oaks Properties Ltd [1965] Ch 816, 383 BCCI v Ahoody [1990] 4 All ER 983, 458 Beacon Heights (Management) Ltd v Leung Ping Hung (1994) HCt MP No 3570 of 1991, 435 Beacon Hill Management Ltd v Leung Ping Hung (1994) HCt MP No 3570 of 1991, 424 :HONG KONG LAND LAW Beatty v Guggenheim Exploration Co (1990) 225 NY 380, 126 Beautiglory Investment Ltd v Tang Yet Tai Tong & others (1993) HCt HC MP No 531 of 1989, 22, 223-224 Beesley v Hallwood Estates Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 549, 55 Benn v Hardinge (1992) 66 P&CR 246, 341 Berkley v Poulet [1976] 241 Est Gaz 911; [1976] 242 Est Gaz 39, 11 88 Berkley Road NW9, re [1971] Ch 648, 254 Bernard v Josephs [1982] Ch 391, 236, 244 Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479, 16 Best Sharp Development Ltd v Lucky Shoe Repairing & Key Duplication Centre [1988] HKC 286, 268 Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58, 390. Bewar v Goodman [1909] AC 72, 360 Biggs v Hodinott [1898] 2 Ch 307, 452, 453, 454 Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494, 293, 294 Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359, 92, 129, 499 Bird v Syme Thomson [1979] 1 WLR 440, 40 Blyth v Fladgate [1891] 1 Ch 337, 129 Bonsor v Musicians Union [1956] AC 104, 409 Borman v Griffith [1930] 1 Ch 493, 328, 333 Bovill v Endle [1895] 1 Ch 648, 485 Boyer v Warbey [1953] 1 QB 234, 354 Bradley v Carritt [1903] AC 253, 452 Breams Property Investment Co Ltd v Strongler [1948] 2 KB1, 360 Bretherton v Paton [1986] 1 EGLR 172, 269 Brew Brothers Ltd v Snax (Ross) Ltd [1970] 1 QB 612, 313 Brickwood v Young (1905) 2 CLR 387, 238, 239 Brilliant v Michaels [1945] 1 All ER 121, 273 Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985] 1 WLR 778, 47, 460 British Railways Board v Glass [1965] Ch 587, 340 Broomfield v Williams [1897] 1 Ch 602, 329 Broughton v Snook [1938] Ch 345, 116 Brown v Flower [1911] 1 Ch 219, 280 Brown v Gould [1972] Ch 53, 103 Brunner v Greenslade [1971] Ch 993, 385 Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance, re [1939] Ch 738, 264 Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1989] 3 WLR 152, 165, 170-171 Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234, 218 Burgess v Rawnsley [1975] Ch 429, 251, 252, 253, 254 Burkes Case, re [1881] 9 LR Ir 24, 52 Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, 123, 124 Byrne, re (1906) 6 SR (NW) 532, 239 Cadell v Palmer (1833) 1 Cl and F372, 192 Caerphilly Concrete Products v Owen [1972] 1 WLR 372, 314 Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 247, 362 Campbell v Holyland (1877) 7 Ch D 166, 480, 481 Campbell v Sovereign Securities Holding Co Ltd (1958) 13 DLR (2d) 195, 265 Canada Life Assurance Co v Kennedy (1978) 89 DLR (3d) 397, 239 Carradine Properties v Aslam [1976] 1 WLR 442, 298 Castle City Ltd v Choi Yue Development Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 593, 159 Caunce v Caunce [1969] 1 WLR 286, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47 Cave v Cave (1880) 15 Ch D 639, 38 Cavendish Property Development Ltd v A-G [1988] HKC 480, 306 Celsteel Ltd v Alton House Holdings (No 2) [1987] 1 WLR 291, 350 Centaploy Lid v Matlodge Ltd [1974] Ch 1, 277TABLE OF CASES Centrovincial Estates Plc v Bulk Storage Ltd (1983) 46 P&CR 393, 347 Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677, 151-152 Chamberlain v Scalley (1992) 26 HLR 26, 299 Chan Hung-kay v A-G [1981] HKLR 171, 308 Chan v Lau Wai-kwong (1984) HCt HCA No 5062 of 1982, 299, 301 Chan Shiu-yee Shirley v Chang Kia-Chung Peter (1987) HCt HCC No A5170 of 1986, 242 Chan Yat v Fung Keong Rubber Manufactory Ltd [1967] HKLR 365, 105 Chandler v Kerley [1978] 1 WLR 693, 496 Chaney v Maclow [1929] 1 Ch 461, 104 Cheam Theam Swee v Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd [1992] 1 AC 472, 484 Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129, 461 Cheong Pik Shan v Lee Bun & another (1994) HCt No A3113 of 1992, 119 Chester v Buckingham Travel Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 96, 288 Cheuk Chau Co Ltd v Chau Kwan-nam & others (1983) HCMP No 274 of 1982, 174, 175, 176 Cheung Yeung-kan v Lui-kwan [1973-1976] HKC 237, 287 Cheung Yuet v Incorporated Owners of Oriental Gardens [1979] HKLR 536; [1977-1979] HKC 168, 420 Chiap Hua Flashlights Ltd v Markfaith Investments Ltd [1990] 2 WLR 145; [1990] 2 WLR 1451; [1990] 2 HKLR 84, 45, 55, 59, 63, 68, 86 China South Seas Bank Lid v George Tan [1990] 2 WLR 56; [1989] 1 HKC 155, 472, 473-474 inachem Investment Co Ltd v Chung Wah Weaving and Dyeing Factory Ltd [1978] HKLR 83, 295 Chiu Shu-Choi v Merrilong Dyeing Works Ltd [1990] 1 HKLR; [1984] HKC 535, 403 Chokar v Chokar [1984] FLR 313, 236 Chow Chin-Tai v Chan Tak-Ming [1994] 1 HKLR 274, 56, 57 Chu Kit Yuk & another v Countryside Industrial Ltd [1995] 1 HKC 363, 34, 19 Chu Tak-hing v Chu Chan Cheung-kin [1968] HKLR 542, 220 Chu Yam-on v Li Tam Toi-hing (1954) 38 HKLR 114(CA); (1956) 40 HKLR 250(PC); [1946-1977] HKC 55, 52, 53, Chui Shui On v Tang Koon Yung & another [1992] 2 HKC 323, 176 Church of England Building Society v Piskor [1954] Ch 553, 279 CIBC v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200, 127, 458-459 CIR v Yeung Cheung Foon, David (1989) CA Civ App Bo 142 of 1988, 122 Citibank NA v Lai Tat-chee [1986] 2 HKLR 885; [1986] HKC 155, 52, 54, 64, 149 Citiward Ltd.v Tai Ping Wing [1995] 2 HKC 181, 394 Citro, re (1990) The Times 7 June, 264 City of London Building Society v Flegg [1986] 1 All ER 989, 218 City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] AC 54, 58 City of London Corporation v Fell [1993] 3 WLR 1164, 347, 351 Cityland & Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch 166, 455, 464 Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd [1936] 3 All ER 483, 497 Coatesworth v Johnson (1886) 54 LT s20; (1886) 55 LJQB 220, 111, 119 Cockerill, re [1929] Ch 131, 199 Cohen v Nessdale Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 118, 105 Colchester Borough Council v Smith [1991] Ch 421, 166 Coldunell v Gallon [1986] 2 WLR 466, 458 Commercial Bank of Hong Kong Ltd, The v Wellstead Textile Co Lid & another (1993) HCt MP 3785 of 1991, 34 Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, 139 Consolidated Sales Ltd v Turner C Lynn [1970] HKLR 222, 61, 67-68 Cook v Shoesmith [1951] 1 KB 752, 313 xiHONG KONG LAND LAW xii Cooke v Head [1972] 1 WLR 518; 1972] 2 All ER 38, 128, 135 Coombe v Smith [1986] 1WLR 808; [1987] 1 WLR 808, 145, 148 Cooper v Critchley [1955] Ch 431, 217 Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488, 323 Coronation Street Industrial Properties Ltd v Ignall Industries Plc [1989] 1 WLR 304, 361 Comish v Midland Bank Ple {1986] 1 WLR 119, 462 Country Rich Development Lid v Ma Chan Fuk Kiu (1994) HCt HCA No 45503 of 1993, 166 Cousins, re (1886) 31 Ch D 671, 38 Cowcher v Cowcher [1972] 1 WLR 425, 244 Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 605, 490, 491 Cowley v Watts (1853) 17 Jur 172, 103 Crabb v Arun District Council (1976] Ch 179; 1979] Ch 179, 143, 146, 148, 150, 153, 501 Crippen, in the estate of [1911] P108, 127 Crips, re (1906) 95 LT 865, 213 Crocodile Garments Ltd v ‘The Prudential Enterprise Ltd [1989] 1 HKC 474, 362 Crofts v Middleton (1856) De GM and G192, 184 Cromwell Investment Co Ltd v Fook Sun Enterprises Ltd [1975] HKLR 1; [1973-1976] HKC 335, 260 Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] Ch 949, 470-471, 473 Cumberland Court (Brighton) Ltd v Taylor [1964] Ch 29, 485 D & F Estates Lid v Church Commissioners (1989] AC 177, 285 Dalton v Angus & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 740, 337 Dandenong Estates Co Ltd v Yu Kai To & others [1989] 1 HKC 587, 420 Daniels v Trefusis [1914] 1 Ch 788, 104 Darlingford Estates Ltd & others v Incorporated Owners of Evelyn Towers [1987] 3 HKC 127, 427 David Wong v Li Suk-bing [1984] HKLR 65, 495 Davis v Symons [1934] Ch 442, 450 Dawson, re (1888) 39 Ch D 155, 194 D'Eyncourt v Gregory [1866] LR 3 Eq 283, 11 de Lasala v de Lasala [1979] 2. All ER 1146, 8 De Luxe Confectionery Ltd v Addington [1958] NZLR 272, 355 Dealmead Ltd v Chin (1987) 281 Est Gaz 531, 273 Dearle v Hall (1823) 3 Russ 1, 445 Demaiter and Link, re (1973) 36 DLR (3d) 164, 265 Dennis v McDonald [1982] Fam 63, 236 Dennis, re [1995] 3 WLR 367, 250 Department of the Environment v Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd [1989]1 All ER 1075, 285 Dexter & others v Petersham (1994) LT BMA No 1 of 1994, 436, 438, 439, 40 Dickinson v Burrow [1904] 2 Ch 339, 116 Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF&J 517, 140, 146, 149, 153 Discovery Bay Services Management Ltd v Buxhaum (1994) DCt DCCA No 4782 of 1991, 411, 412, 416, 430, 435 Dodsworth v Dodsworth (1973) 228 Est Gaz 1115, 152, 154 Doe d Gill v Pearson (1805) 6 East 173, 199 Doherty v Allman (1878) 3 App Cas 709, 287, 417 Dolling v Evans (1867) 36 LF Ch 474, 103 Dolphin’s Conveyance, re [1970] Ch 654, 383 Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd [1993] 2 WLR 86, 472, 478 Dr Franklin Li & Others v Crocus Properties Inc [1981] HKC 367, 103-104, 400 Drake v Whipp (1995) The Times 19 December, 120TABLE OF CASES Drapers Conveyance, re [1969] 1 Ch 486, 250, 253, 254 Drewell v Towler (1832) 3B&AD735, 325 Drinkwater v Ratcliffe [1875] 20 LR Eq 528, 261 Dugdale, re (1888) 38 Ch D 176, 199 Duke of Norfolk’s Case (1681) 2 Swanst 454, 192 Duke of Westminster v Guild [1985] QB 688, 284, 403, Duke v Robson [1973] 1 WLR 267, 475 Dumpor's Case (1603) 4 Co Rep 119b, 392 Easyknit Investment Co Ltd v Yetonce Ltd (1991) HCt MP No 1454 of 1991, 121 Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England’s Conveyance, re [1936] Ch 430, 390, 391 Elias v George Sahely & Co (Barbados) Ltd [1983] AC 646, 106 Elias v Mitchell [1972] Ch 652, 217 Ellenborough Park, re [1956] Ch 131, 318-319, 320, 322, 487 Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374, 382, 383, 384, 415 Emile Elias & Co Ltd v Pine Groves Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 305, 384 Enway Development Ltd v Light Ocean Investment Ltd [1994] 3 HKC 31, 226-227 Equity & Law Home Loans Ltd v Prestidge [1922] 1 WLR 137, 47 ER Ives Investment Ltd v High [1967] 2 QB 379, 155, 327, 368, 501, 502 Erewash Borough Council v Taylor [1979] CLY 1831, 465 Errington v Errington & Woods [1952] 1 KB 290, 498 Escalus Properties Ltd v Robinson [1995] 3 WLR 524, 293 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Alstonbridge Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1474, 465 Esso Peroleum Co Lid v Harper's Garage (Stockport) Ltd [1968] AC 269, 455 Evers Trust, re {1980] 1 WLR 1327, 264 Eves v Eves [1975] 1 LWR 1388; [1975] 1 WLR 1338, 131, 135, 136 Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340, 292 Facchini v Byson [1952] 1 TLR 1386, 270 Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd [1912] AC 565, 451, 454 Pairfax Ltd v AG [1995] 2 HKC 401 & 617, 394 Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co Ltd [1962] 2 WLR 1620, 174, 175 Fast Forward Ltd v Magicsound Co Ltd [1990] 2 HKC 494; (1991) Civ App Nos 180 of 1990 and 3 of 1991, 59-60, 61, 92, 500 Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594, 387, 388-389 Ferguson v Miller [1978] NZLR 819, 233 Field v Barkworth [1986] 1 WLR 137, 313 Financial and Investment Services for Asia Ltd v Baik Wha International Trading Co Ltd [1985] HKLR 103, 53, 54, 61, 68, 81, 485 First Base Development Ltd v Or Lau Chun (1991) HCt MP No A2669 of 1990, 176 First National Securities Ltd v Hegarty [1985] QB 850, 248, 260 Flight v Bentley (1835) 7 Sim 149, 351 Foo Kam-shing v Local Printing Press (1953) 37 HKLR 208, 338 Ford Chung v Ho Wai-man [1959] HKLR 12, 276 Forda Investors Ltd v UOB Finance (HK) Ltd [1979] HKLR 382, 262 Formby v Barker [1903] 2 Ch 539, 373 Formking Development Ltd v Lee Kwok Hung, Robert 1993] 1 HKC 412, 121 Fortune Year Development Ltd v Mui Shu Huen (1993) HCA No A2951 of 1993, 176 Four Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd [1957] Ch 317, 465 Freeman v Laing [1899] 2 Ch 355, 483, Freize v Unger [1960] VR 230, 247 Frencher Ltd (in liquidation) v Bank of East Asia [1995] 2 HKC 263, 481 Frost, re (1889) 43 Ch D 246, 194 xiiiHONG KONG LAND LAW Fu Lam Investment Co Lid v Mok Cheong-che (1983) HCt No 1978 of 1983, 287 Fu Mei Ling Mary v Yeung Kong [1994] 2 HKC 1, 176 Fung Kam Cheung v Kwok Yiu Wing [1991] 1 HKG 321, 159 Fullerton v National Bank of Ireland [1903] AC 309, 53 Fulltrend Co Ltd v Longer Year Development Ltd & another [1990] 1 HKC 542, 121 Gaites Will Trust, re [1949] 1 All ER 459, 194 Gamer v Blaxill [1960] 1 WLR 752, 314 Garnet and McGoran, re (1980) 117 DLR (3d) 649, 260 George Wimpey Co Ltd v South [1967] Ch 487, 167 Giant River Ltd v Asia Marketing Ltd [1990] 1 HKLR 297, 404 Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, 81, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130-134 passim, 139, 244 Goldberg v Edwards [1950] Ch 247; [1952] Ch 247, 325, 328, 330 Golden Bay Investment Ltd v Chou Hung & others {1994]2 HKC 197, 263 Golden City Theatre Ltd v Kwan Ching-tak (1956) 40 HKLR 198, 470 Gonin, re [1979] Ch 16, 115 Goodall’s Settlement, re [1909] 1 Ch 440, 214 Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam 106, 242 Goodman v J Eban Ltd [1954] 1 QB 550, 104 Goodtex Land Company Ltd v Lung Kwong Emporium Co Ltd [1993] 1 HKC 645, 400, 402 Gore and Snell v Carpenter (1990) P&CR 456, 252 Graham v Philcox [1984] QB 747, 330 Grand Junction Co Lid v Bates [1954] 2 QB 160, 444 Grangeside Properties Lid v Collingwood Securities Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 139, 446 Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638; 1 WLR 808, 134, 136, 139, 148, 156 Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306, 146, 147, 149, 153, 501 Greenfield v Greenfield (1979) 38 P&CR 570, 252 Greenwich LBC v McGrady (1983) 46 P&CR 223, 240 Grenville House Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Grenville House [1978] HKLR 235, 425, 426 Griffies v Griffies (1863) 8 LT 758, 234 Griffiths v Williams (1977) 248 Est Gaz, 146 Grigsby v Melville (1972) 4-.WLR 1355, 323 GS Fashions Ltd v B&Q Ple & others [1995] 1 WLR, 290-291 HA Warner Pty v Williams (1946) 73 CLR 421, 270 Hadjiloucas v Crean [1988] 1 WLR 1006, 271 Hall v Ewin (1887) 37 Ch D 74, 374 Halsall v Brizell (1957] Ch 169, 368-369, 410, 411 Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, 240, 241 Hampstead & Suburban Properties Ltd v Diomedous {1969] 1 Ch 248, 417 Hang Seng Bank v Mee Chong Developments Ltd [1970] HKLR 94, 480 Hang Tak Co Ltd v A-G (1986) HCt HCA No 2567 of 1983, 284 Hang Wah-chong Investment Co Ltd v A-G [1981] 1 WLR 1141, 306 Hansford v Jago [1921] 1 Ch 322, 333 Hardwick v Johnson [1978] 1 WLR 683, 494 Harmer v Jumil (Nigeria) Tin Areas Ltd [1921] 1 Ch 200, 281 Harris v Flower (1905) 74 LJ Ch 127, 339 Harris v Goddard [1983] 3 All ER 242, 254 Harvey v Harvey [1982] Fam 83, 236 Harvey v Pratt [1965] 1 WLR 1025, 273. Hawkesley v May [1956] 1 QB 304, 253 Hayim v Citibank NA [1987] AC 730, 472TABLE OF CASES Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 8 QBD. 403, 371 Haywood v Chaloner [1968] 1 QB 107, 172 Health First Technology Ltd v Chan Chi-cheung [1993] 2 HKLR 473, 57 Henderson v Eason (1851) 17 QB 701, 234 Herbert Duncan Ltd v Cluttons [1993] 3 WLR 1164, 347 Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 WLR 1241, 271, 278 Hetherington dec’d, in re [1989] 2 WLR 1094, 200 Hill v Hickin [1897] 2 Ch 579, 234 Hill v Hill [1947] Ch 231, 104 Hill v Tupper (1863) 2 H&C 121, 321, 322 Hilten, re [1890] 2 Ch 548, 213 Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 129, 349 Ho Hang-wan v Ma Ting-cheung (1989) CA Civ App No 42 of 1989, 169 Ho Nga Sheung v Ma Fook Leung (1993) 2 HKC 647, 122, 242, 250, 254 Ho Sei-shing v Wan Ying-him [1959] HKLR 483, 57 Ho Wai-fong v Tang Mei-lin [1987] 3 HKC 458, 286 Ho Yee Ming Theresa v Chung Loi Toi [1994] 1 HKC 618, 176 Hodgson v Marks [1971] Ch 892, 40 Holland v Hodgson [1872] LR 7CP 328, 11 Holliday, re [1981] Ch 405, 264 Holmes, re (1885) 29 Ch D 786, 446 Home Restaurant Ltd, The v A-G [1987] HKLR 237, 22, 308 Hon Hing Enterprises Ltd v Honolulu Land Investment Co Ltd (1992) HCt HCA No 3557 of 1991, 418, 420 Hon Po Sun v Lau Ngai [1995] 1 HKC 556, 127 Hong Kong Housing Authority, The v Hung Pui [1987] 3 HKC 495, 105 Hong Kong Land Co Ltd v Cheung Chiu-moon (1976) CA Civ App No 214 ‘of 1976, 420 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, re (1993) MP No 4049 of 1992, 57 Hong Kong Ferry (Holdings) Co Ltd v Chan Kwan & others [1995] 1 HKC 542,177 Hong Kong Ping Jeng Lau Co Ltd v Incorporated Owners of United Centre [1990] 1 HKC 178, 414 Hong Yip Service Company Ltd v Ng Wai Man (1988) CA Civ App No 159 of 1988, 419 Hop Woo-cheung Enterprises Ltd v Intergroup Industries Ltd [1982] HKC 436, 301 Hopkinson v Rolt (1861) 9 HCL 514, 483 Horne's Settled Estate, re (1888) 39 Ch D 84, 213 Horracks v Forray [1976] 1 WLR 230, 495 Hotchkys, re (1886) 32 Ch D 408, 213, 215 Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] Ch 233, 488, 491, 492 Hoyle, re [1893] 1 Ch 84, 105 Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd v Chiaphua Industries Ltd [1987] AC 99, 360-361, 368 Hughes v Cork (1994) EGCS 25, 168 Hui Kay-cheong v Chi Wo Properties [td [1992] HKD CLR 51, 434 Hulme v Brightman [1943] KB 152, 11 Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch 428, 39 Huntingdon v Hobbs (1992) 24 HLR 652, 242, 250 Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1914] 1 KB 1; [1915] 1 KB 1, 488, 490, 491 Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 32 Est Gaz 59, 301HONG KONG LAND LAW Incorporated Owners of Chungking Mansions, The v Shamdasani [1991] 2 HKC 342, 405, Incorporated Owners of Dragon View v Nalpak Ltd [1989] 1 HKC 549, 419 Incorporated Owners of Golden Crown Court, The v Chow Shun Yung (1987) HCt HCA No 4322 of 1986, 406, 420 Incorporated Owners of Hoi Luen Industrial Centre, The v Goodwell Property Management Ltd (1994) HCt HCA No A5450 of 1993, 419 Incorporated Owners of Hoi Luen Industrial Centre v Ohashi Chemical Industries (HK) Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 11, 420 Incorporated Owners of Mai On Industrial Building v Hedit Ltd (1987) HCT. HCA No A6529 of 1987, 417 Incorporated Owners of South Seas Centre, The v Great Treasure Development Ltd [1994] 1 HKC 197, 418 Incorporated Owners of South Seas Centre v South Seas Centre Management Ltd [1986] HKLR 457, 429, 431 Industrial Properties (Barton Hill) Ltd v Associated Electrical Industries Ltd [1977] QB 580, 279 International Tea Stores Co v Hobbs [1903] 2 Ch 165, 328 Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29, 151, 501 Ip Cheung Kwok v Ip Siu Bun [1988] HKC 437, 200, 221 Irani Finance Co Ltd v Singh [1971] Ch 59, 217 Irene Loong v Pun Tsun-hang [1959] DCLR 192, 11-12 Irvin v Blake (1993) 67 P&CT 263, 136 J Sainsbury Plc v Enfield LBC [1989] 1 WLR 590, 389 Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468, 490 Jacobs v Seaward (1872) LR 5 HL 464, 231, 232, 247, 406 James $ Lee & Co (Kowloon) Ltd v Kapok Garments Ltd [1985] 2 HKC 383, 301 Jarvis v Swan Tours [1973] 2 QB 233, 490 Jelbert v Davies [1968] 1 WLR 589, 339 JLW Management Services Ltd & another v Charter Dragon Development Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 501, 401, 406 John So & another v Lau Hon Man [1993] 2 HKC 356, 407, 416 John Trenberth Lid v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1979] 39 P&CR 104, 16 Johnson, re [1915] 1 Ch 435, 213 Johnstone, re [1973] Qd R 347, 254 Jones, in re [1893] 2 Ch 461, 239 Jones v Challenger [1961] 1 QB 176, 264 Jones v Lavington [1903] 1 KB 253, 281 Jones v Price [1965] 2 QB 618, 323 Kai Sun Investments Ltd v Dah Sing Bank Ltd [1983] 2 HKC 554, 67 Kan Fat-tat v Kan Yin-tat [1987] HKLR 516, 8, 220, 221, 224 Karak Rubber Co Ltd v Burden [1972] 1 All ER 1210, 130 Keech v Sandford (1776) Sel Cab King, 130 Keefe v Amor [1965] 1 QB 334, 338 Kelsin v Imperial Tobacco Co (of Great Britain and Ireland) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 334, 16 Kemp v Public Curator of Queensland [1969] Qd R 145, 255 Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499, 280 Kenten Investment Ltd v Hui Lap Ping Sam HCt MP No 3447 of 1991, 119 King, re [1963] Ch 459, 350 King v David Allen & Sons Bill Posting Ltd [1916] 2 AC 54, 497 King's Motors (Oxford) Ltd v Lax [1970] 1 WLR 426, 103 Kingsmill v Millard (1855) 11 Exch 313, 180 Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard [1986] 1 WLR 783, 41-42, 43, 45, 46TABLE Ot Kingsnorth Trust Ltd v Bell [1986] 1 WLR 119, 46, 460 Kingswood Estate Co Ltd v Anderson [1963] 2 QB 169, 113, 114, 115 Knightsbridge Estates Trust Lid v Byme [1939] Ch 441, 450 Kok Chong Ho v Double Value Developments Ltd [1993] 2 HKLR 423, 404, 405 Koo Cheuk Son v Tang Wai Chun [1973] HKLR 891, 407 Koy Investment Co Lid, in re [1983] HKLR 28, 309 Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25, 454, 455 Kumar v Dunning [1989] QB 193, 361 Kun Wai-ying v A-G [1975] HKLR 1, 308 Kung Wai-ying v A-G [1974] HKLR 1; [1975] HKLR 1, 292 Kung Wong Sau Hin v Jung Kwok-sun [1985] 2 HKC 547, 249 Kwok v Kwok and Smith (1910) 5 HKLR 247, 57 Kwok Siu-lau v Kan Yang-chee (1919) 8 HKLR 52, 61-62, 64 Kwong Ka Hung & another v Lai Wah Development Co Ltd (1996) HCt No 410566 of 1994, 401-402 Kwong Kai Hing & another v Chan Lik (1995) HCt MP No 1529 of 1995, 121 Kwong Suk-chun v Wong Fung-ming (1989) HCt MP No 66 of 1989, 211, 212, 215 Lace v Chantler [1944] KB 368, 274 Lady de Soysa v De Pless Pol [1912] AC 194, 289 Lai Chi Kok Amusements Park (No 2) v Tsang Tin-sum [1966] HKLR 124, 226 Lai Moon Hung v Lam Island Development Co Ltd [1994] HKC 11, 176-177 Lai Wing Ho v Chan Siu Fong (1992) HCt MP No 2835 of 1992, 401 Lam Kee On v Lam Hing [1992] 2 HKC 317, 176 Lam Kwok-leung v A-G [1979] HKLR 145, 281 Lam Man-yuen v Lucky Apartment [1964] HKLR 689, 269 Lampet’s Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 466, 190 Latec Investments Ltd v Hotel Terrigal Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 265, 35-36 Lau Leung Shi v Lau Po Tsun (1911) 6 HKLR 149, 200 Lavender v Betts [1942] 2 All ER 72, 280 Law Ping-wong v Ho Chi-na (1987) HCt HCA NO A1652 OF 1986, 242 Law v Jones [1974] Ch 112, 104, 105 Law Shi Ying v Law Kam Tai [1994] 1 HKC 378, 262, 263 Le Neve v Le Neve (1748) 2 W&T 175, 62 Leake v Bruzzi [1974] 1 WLR 1528, 236 Lee Parker v Izzet [1979] 1 WLR 1688, 296 Lee Siu Man v Chu Chi Wing [1992] 1 HKC 266, 71 Lee Tak Chun v East Weal International Ltd & another [1994] 1 HKC 722, 400 Lee Tak Kwong v Choi Pui Kei Stephen [1991] 2 HKC 1091, 119 Lee v The Showman’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329, 409 Leek and Moorlands Building Society v Clark [1952] 2 QB 788, 240 Leeman v Stocks [1951] Ch 941, 104 Leigh v Dickenson (1885) 15 QBD 60, 237, 238, 239 Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex D 264, 164, 171 Leigh v Taylor [1902] AC 157, 11 Leigh's Settled Estates, re [1926] Ch 852, 214 Lemmon v Webb [1895] AC 1, 16 Leung Chung-ting v Tin Yat Co [1963] HKLR 58, 298 Leung Kwok-kau v Tam So-wa [1968] HKLR 673, 10 Lewis v Baker [1905] 1 Ch 46, 274 Lewis v Frank Love Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 261, 449-450 Lewis v Stephenson (1989) 78 LJ QB 296, 314 Lewvest Ltd v Scottia Towers Ltd [1982] 126 DLR 9 (3d) 239, 16 Li Ming On v Lucky Apple Ltd & another [1994] 2 HKLR 111, 400 Li Tang-shi v Li Wai-kwong [1969] HKLR 367, 220, 226 Li Wing-sum v Wu Man [1978] HKLR 575, 279HONG KONG LAND LAW xviii Lily Cheung v CED [1987] 3 HKC 307, 122 Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan [1992] 1 WLR 113, 148-149 Lionwill Investment Ltd v Triple Will Ltd [1992] 2 HKC 430, 121 Liu Kwok-wah v Chung Hang-fai Nancy [1989] 2 HKC 259, 242 Liu Ying-wah v Great Mace Trading Co Ltd [1987] 1 HKC 167, 295 Liverpool City Council v Inwin [1977] AC 239, 282, 283, 284, 403 Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] QB 326, 458 Lloyds Bank Ple v Rosset [1989] Ch 350; [1990] 2 WLR 867; 43, 45, 128, 134, 135, 136 Lloyds v Banks (1868) 3 Ch App 488, 445 Lo Shun Cheung v Fung Siu Kam [1984] HKC 107, 279 Lo Yu Chu v Kam Fu Lai Development Ltd [1994] 3 HKC 18, 418, 421 Loi Po Investment Co Ltd v Real Reach Co Ltd (1985) HCt MP 1430 of 1984, 306 Lok On Co Ltd v A-G (1982) HCt MP 561 of 1982, 309 London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbrooke Retail Parks Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 31; [1993] 1 All ER 307, 319, 322, 323 London and South Western Railway Co v Gomm (1882) 20 Ch D 562, 376 London County Council v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642, 373 London & Country (A&D) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] Ch 764, 351 Long v Gowlett [1923] 2 Ch 177, 329, 330 Lord Hastings v Sadler (1898) 79 LT 355, 180 Lord Waring v London and Manchester Assurance Co Ltd [1935] Ch 310, 476 Lui Kam Lau & another v Leung Ming Fai [1994] 3 HKC 477, 120, 131, 137 Lyons v Lyons [1967] VR 169, 248 Lysaght v Edwards (1876) 2 Ch D 499, 118 Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 1044, 92, 128, 129, 475, 499 McCormick v McCormick (1921) 40 NZLR 384, 234 McCreal v Wake (1986) 269 Est Gaz 1254, 286 MacDonald v MacDonald (1976) 73 DLR (3d) 341, 263 McDowell v Hirschfield, Lipson & Rumney [1992] FLR 126, 252 McGrath v Willis [1995] 2 FLR 114, 123 McHardy and Sons (a firm) v Warren [1994] 2 FLR 338, 138 McMahon v Burchell (1846) 2 Ph 127, 235 McMahon v The Public Curator of Queensland [1952] St R Qd 197, 237-238, 239 McManus v Cooke (1887) 35 Ch D 681, 327 Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467, 111, 112, 113, 115 Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107, 144, 148, 149-150 Mak Him v Chan Hung-pak [1965] HKLR 87, 62 Mak Woon Shui (dec’d), re [1992] 2 HKC 144, 122 Malayan Credit Ltd v Jack Chia MPH Ltd [1986] AC 549, 244 Man Kam-tong v Man Lin-tai (1984) MCA No 5478 of 1981; [1984] HKLR 181; [1985] 2 HKC 299, 167, 304 Manchester Brewery Co v Coombs [1901] 2 Ch 608, 358 Manjang v Drammeh (1990) 61 P&CR 194, 334 Marchant v Charters [1977] 1 WLR 1181, 268 Marketing Ltd v Cheerifat Investment Ltd (1995) HCt MP No 2727 of 1995, 399 Markou v Da Silvaesa (1986) 52 P&CR 204, 273, Marquess of Zetland v Driver [1939] 1 Ch 1, 374, 386 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co (1861) 3 De GF&J 177, 467 Marten v Flight Refuelling Ltd [1962] Ch 115, 381, 384, 387 Massey v Midland Bank Ple [1995] 1 All ER 929, 460 Matharu v Matharu (1994) 68 P&CR 93, 142, 146 Matthew Manning's Case (1609) 8 Co Rep 946, 190 Matthews v Goodday Ltd (1861) 31 LJ Ch 282, 447 ‘Matthews v Smallwood [1910] 1 Ch 777, 295TABLE OF CASES May King Development Co v Young Ching-huo Ltd [1981] HKLR 280, 270 Mayfield Holdings Ltd v Moana Reef Ltd {1973] NZLR 309, 492 Mayho v Buckhurst (1617) Cro Jac 438, 360 Mayluck Investment Ltd v Lee Yih Ping & others (1996) HCt MP No 1537 of 1995, 400 Melvin v Melvin (1975) 58 DLR (3d) 98, 263 Mexx Consolidated (Far East) Ltd V A-G [1987] HKLR 1210, 306 Midland Bank Ltd v Farmpride Hatcheries [1980] 260 Est Gaz 493, 499 Midland Bank Ple v Cooke [1995] 4 All ER 562, 128, 138 Midland Bank Plc v Dobson [1986] 1 FLR 171, 135 Midland Bank Ple v Serter (1995) 1 FLR 1034, 460 Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green [1981] AC 513, 33, 49, 62-63 Mileover Ltd v Brady [1983] 3 All ER 618, 273 Miles v Easter [1933] 1 Ch 611, 382 Miller v Ecmer Products Ltd [1956] Ch 304, 325 Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Rawlinson (1981) 43 P&CR 221, 465 Monnickendam v Leanse [1923] 29 TLR 445, 101 Moody v Steggles (1879) LR 12 Ch 261, 321, 325 Moore v Rawson (1824) 3 B&C 332, 341 Morris v Redland Brick Ltd [1970] AC 652, 419 MRA Engineering Ltd v Trimster Co Ltd (1987) The Times 22 October, 330 Mulahy v Curramore PEY Ltd [1974] 2 NSW LR 464, 165 Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1978] Ch 84, 456 Mumford v Bank of Scotland (1995) The Times 29 September, 457 Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 WLR 944, 285 Mutual Life Assurance Society v Langley (1886) 32 Ch D 460, 446 National Carriers Ltd v Panalpine (Norther) Ltd [1981] AC 675, 300 National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, 39, 496 National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686; [1985] 2 WLR 588, 46, 458, 459 National Westminster Bank Plc v Skelton [1993] 1 WLR 72, 465, 466 Navigation Co v Lamberg Bleaching Dyeing & Furnishing Co Ltd [1927] AC 226, 340 NC Chan v Chung Lee Construction Co [1964] HKLR 254, 492 New Hart Builders v Brindley [1975] Ch 342, 116 Newbould, re (1913) 110 LT 6, 213 Newton Abbott Co-operative Society Ltd v Williamson & Treadgold Ltd [1952] Ch 286, 380-381 Ng Fung Property Investment Ltd v Lam Ting Sin (1993) HCMP No 2446 of 1993, 176 Ng Kam-ha v Vincent Sina Traders (HK) Ltd [1987] 2 HKC 517, 68 Ngai Hong Cycle (Electric) Ltd v China Harmonious Ltd (1994) HCt MP No 4343 of 1993, 122 Ngan Chor Ying Ann v Yeat Trend Development [1995] HKC 605, 420, 437 Niceboard Development Ltd v China Light & Power Co Ltd (1993) LT MP No 14 of 1991, 306 Nickerson v Barraclough [1981] Ch 426, 334 Nielson-Jones v Fedden [1975] Ch 222, 251-252, 253, 254 Nisbett and Potts’ Gontract, re [1906] 1 Ch 386, 376-377 Noak v Noak [1959] VR 137, 239 Noakes v Rice [1902] AC 24, 453, 454 North v Loomes [1919] 1 Ch 378, 104 Oates v Oates [1949] SASR 37, 232, 247 Oceania Manufacturing Co v Pang Kwong-hon [1979] HKLR 445, 7 xixHONG KONG LAND LAW xx Olivesburg Lid v Volstead Travel Service Co Ltd [1994] 2 HKC 507, 293 One Queen Co Ltd v Chan Siu-Lan [1989] 1 HKC 146, 273 Orient Leasing (Hong Kong) Ltd v NP Etches [1985] HKLR 292, 13 Osachuk v Osachuk (1971) 18 DLR (3d) 413, 235 Owen v Gadd [1956] 2 QB 99, 280 O'Brien v Robinson [1973] AC 912, 285, 286 P & A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc [1989] AC 632; [1989] AC 633, 361, 362, 374, 414 Palmer, re [1993] Ch 72, 250 Pang Kwan-lung v Ma Choi-hop [1989] 2 HKC 449, 337 Parkash v Irani Finance Ltd [1970] Ch 101, 485 Parker Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc [1990] 2 All ER 577, 471-472, 478 Parker v British Airways Board [1982] QB 1004, 17 Parker v Taswell (1858) 2 De G&J 559, 118, Parker's Settled Estates [1928] Ch 247, 214 Parsons v Parsons [1983] 1 WLR 1390, 240 Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431, 153-154 Patten, re (1883) 52 LJ Ch 787, 217 Pearce v Gardner [1897] 1 QB 688, 106 Pearl Island Hotel Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Pearl Island Villas (1988) HCt HCA No A1528 & 7777-8 of 1987, 414, 429, 431 Pearl Island Hotel Ltd v Li Ka Yu [1988] HKC 512, 411, 439 Peffer v Rigg [1977] 1 WLR 285, 92 Penta Continental Land Investment Co Lid v Chung Kwok Restaurants Ltd [1967] DCLR 22, 12 Perera v Vandiyar [1953] 1 WLR 672, 280 Perkins v Perkins, re (1972) 31 DLR (3d) 694, 263 Peter and Angeli Wong Co Ltd v Silverera Ltd [1995] 3 HKC 411, 393 Petrie, re [1962] Ch 355, 213 Petrol Filing Station, re (1969) 20 P&CR 1, 450 Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 77; [1969] 2 All ER 385, 127, 130 Phillips v Mobil Oil Co Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 276, 55 Phillips’ Trusts, re [1903] 1 Ch 183, 446 Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76, 324, 329 Pilcher v Rawlins (1872) Ch App 259, 32, 33 Pinewood Estate, re (1958) Ch 280, 380 Pitt v Jones (1880) 5 App Cas 651, 261 Plimmer v Wellington Corporation (1884) 9 App Cas 699, 141, 149, 150, 501 Potter v Duffield (1874) LR 18 Eq 14, 103 Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P&CR 452, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171 Predeth v Castle Williams Finance Co Ltd (1986) 279 Est Gaz 1355, 473 Propert v Parker (1832) 3 My & K 280, 289 Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386, 275, 277 Prudential Enterprises Ltd, The v PH Shek Ltd (1988) HCt HCA No A4911 of 1987, 291, 295 Public Trustee of Manitoba and Le Clerc, re (1982) 123 DLR (3d) 694, 256 Pulteney v Warren (1801) 6 Ves 73, 234 Pun Jong-sau v Pong Wing-kong [1980] HKLR 662; [1977-1979] HKC 210, 262 Purchase v Lichfield Brewery Co [1915] 1 KB 184, 354, 355 Pyer v Carter (1887) 1 H&N 916, 333, Quennel v Maltby [1979] 1 WLR 318, 465 R v Ng Kam-chuen [1986] HKLR 1202, 17 R v Secretary of State for the Envionment (1990) P&CR 487, 166TABLE OF CASES Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129, 140, 141 Rance v Elvin (1985) P&CR 65, 323 Rasmanis v Jurewitsch (1969) 90 WN (NSW) 154, 255 Rawlinson v Ames 1925] Ch 339, 116 Red House Farms (Thorndon) Ltd v Catchpole (1977) Est Gaz 798, 167 Reebok Trading (Far East) Ltd v Pok Fu Lam Management Lid {1994] 3 HKC 1, 434 Reeve v Lisle [1902] AC 461, 449 Reeves v Pope [1914] 2 KB 284, 37 Regent Oil Co Ltd v JA Gregory (Hatch End) Ltd [1966] Ch 402, 374 Regis Property Ltd v Dudley [1959] AC 370, 288, 313 Registrar-General of New South Wales, The v Wood (1826) 39 CLR 46, 265 Reid v Bickerstaff [1909] 2 Ch 305, 382 Renals v Cowlishaw (1878) 9 Ch D 125, 380, 382, 386 Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 All ER at 73, 369 Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 WLR 429, 411 Rhone v Stevens [1994] 2 AC 310, 371 Rice v Rice (1884) 2 Dres 73 VC, 35 Richards v Morgans (1753) 4 Y&C Ex 570, 468 Richardson v Feary (1888) 39 Ch D 45, 262 Risch v McFee (1991) 61 P&CR 42, 244 Riseway Investment Ltd v Wong Kwok Chiang & another [1995] 2 HKC 25, 259 Robson v Hallett {1967] 2 QB 939, 488 Rogers v Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch 388, 374, 380, 385, 387 Rose Spicer, Rose v Hyman [1912] AC 623, 293 Rosher, re (1884) 26 Ch D 801, 199 Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App Cas 1124, 103 Royal Victoria Pavilion Ramsgate, re [1961] Ch 581, 376 Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB 87, 292 Ruptash and Lumsden v Zawick {1956] 2 DLR (2d) 145, 239 Rye v Rye [1962] AC 496, 328 Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, 56, 285 Salt v Marquess of Northampton [1892] AC 1, 450 Salvation Army Trustee Co Ltd v West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council [1980] 41 P&CR 179, 105 Samuel v Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Co Ltd [1904] AC 323, 449 Sanderson v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Corporation (1884) 13 QBD 547, 281 Sandon v Hopper (1843) 6 Beav 246, 468 Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 Ch 474, 451, 453 Satanita, The [1985] P 249; [1897] AC 59, 409 Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115, 27, 208 Scala House & District Properties Ltd v Forbes [1974] QB 575, 292 Schwaan v Cotton [1916] 2 Ch 120 & 459, 333, 336 Score Intemational Enterprises Ltd v Continental Cement & Gypsum Co Ltd (2995) CA Civ App No 228 of 1994, 103 Security Trust Co v Royal Bank of Canada [1976] AC 503, 63, Selous Street Properties Ltd v Oronel Fabrics Ltd (1984) 270 Est Gaz 643, 347 Selwyn v Garfitt (1888) 38 Ch D 273, 476 Seton v Slade (1802) 7 Ves Jun 265, 447 Shamji v Johnson Matthey [1991] BCLC 36, 478 Sharpe, re [1980] 1 WLR 219, 152 Sheepnip Industries Ltd v Champion Billion Development Ltd (1995) HCt MP 1390 of 1995, 400 Shephard v Jones (1882) 21 Ch D 469, 468 Shields v Chan [1972] HKLR 121, 312 Shiloh Spinner's Ltd v Harding [1973] AC 691, 292, 294 xxiHONG KONG LAND LAW xxii Shun Shing-hing Investment Co Ltd v A-G [1983] 2 HKC 314, 309 Sik Tak Sheung & others v Sik Miu Wai (1993) HCt MP No 2797 of 1993, 216 Silver Source Development Ltd v Time Century Ltd [1992] 1 HKC 366, 299 Simmons v Dobson [1991] 1 WLR 720, 337 siu Chun-wah Alice v Malahon Credit Co Ltd [1987] 2 HKC 79, 242, 249 ‘Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd and others v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500, 378, 379 Smith Bird v Blower [1939] 2 All ER 406, 105 Smith v City Petroleum Co Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 260, 14 Smith v Marrable (1843) 11 M&W 5, 282 Snell & Prideaux Ltd v Dutton Mirrors Ltd [1994] EGCS 78, 342 So Amy & Others v Au Leslie [1995] 2 HKC 113, 104 Somma v Hazelhurst [1978] 1 WLR 1041, 268, 272 Song Ling Investment Ltd v Kin Hing Godown Ltd (1994) CA Civ App 4 of 1994, 423 Southem Centre of Theosophy Inc v State of South Australia [1982] AC 706, 15 Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1979] AC 144, 330 Spencer's Case (1583) 5 Co Rep 16a, 353-357 passim, 362, 363, 376 Spicer v Martin (1888) 14 App Cas 12, 382 Springette v Defoe [1992] 2 FLR 388, 139 Spyer v Phillipson [1931] 2 Ch 183, 14 Squire v Rogers (1979) 27 ALR 330, 234, 235 Squarey v Harris-Smith (1981) 42 P&CR 118, 332 St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clarke (No 2) [1975] 1 WLR 468, 326, 338 Stacey v Hill [1901] 1 KB 660, 349 Stafford v Lee (1992) 65 P&CR 172, 334 Standard Chartered Bank v Walker [1982] 1 WLR 1410, 471, Steadman v Steadman [1976] AC 536, 113-114, 116 Stedman v Smith (1857) 8E and B1, 232 Stokes v Anderson [1991] 1 FLR 391, 244 Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809, 267, 269, 270-271 Strelly v Winson (1684) 1 Vern 297, 234 Sudbrooke Trading Estate v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444, 103 Sun Hing Co Ltd y Brilliant Investment Co Ltd [1966] HKLR 310, 290 Sunface International Ltd v Meco Engineering Ltd [1990] 1 HKC 434, 285 Supreme Honour Development Ltd v Lamaya Ltd [1991] 1 HKC 198, 370, 374, 409, 414 Suttill v Graham [1977] 1 WLR 819, 236 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd v Universal News Services Ltd [1964] 2. QB 699, 313 473 ‘Take Harvest Ltd v Lui [1992] 2 WLR 785, 298, 299 Tam Mo Yin & another v AG & others (1995) HCt MP No 1868 of 1994, 167, 177, 180 ‘Tang Bik-ching v Wong Yuet-ying [1987] DCLR 30, 286 Tang Chi Ho v Wong Yuk Ho & others (1996) CA Civ App No 198 of 1995, 157 Tang Kai-chung v Tang Chik-shang [1970] HKLR 276, 9, 219, 223 ‘Tang Kun Nin v Tang Chun Chak (1992) HCt MP No 761 of 1991, 159 Tang Mei-lin v Tsui Lin [1967] DCLR 33, 298 ‘Tang Ping-hoi v A-G [1987] HKLR 324, 22, 308 Tang Shu Tin v Tang Kin Kwok [1994] 2 HKC 727, 177 Tang Tin-fat v Chan Fok-kei [1993] 2 HKLR 373, 336, 337 ‘Tang Yau Yi Tong v Tang Mou Shau Tso [1995] 2 HKC 245, 221-222 ‘Tang Yin Ling v Wong Sai (1994) HCt MP No 2527 of 1992, 232, 235TABLE OF CASES ‘Tang Ying Ki & another v Maxtime Transportation Ltd (1996) HCt MP No 407 of 1996, 474, 476 ‘Tanner v Tanner [1975] 1 WLR 1346, 494 ‘Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] QB 133, 144, 147 Taylor v Ellis [1960] Ch 368, 463 ‘Thames Guaranty v Campbell [1985] QB 210, 248 ‘Thellusson v Wood (1799) 4 Ves 227, 207 ‘Thians Plastics Co Ltd v Tins Chemicals Co Ltd (No 2) [1971] HKLR 249, 57 ‘Thirkell v Cambi [1919] 2 KB 590, 104 ‘Thomas v Hayward (1869) LR 4 Ex 311, 360 ‘Thompson v Park [1944] KB 408, 491 Thornley v Thornley [1893] 2 Ch 229, 265 ‘Thrift v Thrift (1976) 10 ALR 332, 235, Thursby’s Settlement, re [1910] 2 Ch 181, 215 Tichbourne v Weir (1892) 67 LT 735, 178 Tickner v Buzzacott [1965] Ch 426, 179 ‘Timmins v Moreland Street Property Co Ltd [1958] Ch 110, 105-106 Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 WLR 126, 124 Tito v Wadell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106, 368, 369 ‘Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell [1975] 1 Ch 146, 104, 105, 106 Tophams Ltd v Earl of Sefton [1967] 1 AC 50, 376, 389 Torrens v Walker [1906] 2 Ch 166, 286 Total Oil Great Britain v Thompson Garages (Biggin Hill) Ltd [1972] 1 QB 318, 301 Treloar v Nute [1976] 1 WLR 1295, 165, 167-168. Tribe v Tribe [1995] 3 WLR 912, 125 TRW Steering Systems Ltd v North Cape & others (1993) 69 P&CR 265, 368, 410 TS Cheng & Sons Lid v A-G (1986) HCt MP 8595 of 1986, 306 ‘Tsang Chuen v Li Po-kwai [1932] AC 715, 52 ‘Tsang Wing-lun v Tsang Lun [1993] 2 HKLR 23, 222-223 ‘TSB Bank Ple v Camfield [1995] 1 WLR 430, 462 ‘Tse Kwong-lam v Wong Chit-sen [1983] 1 WLR 1349, 472-473, 474, 476 ‘Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph 774, 179, 370, 371, 382, 410, 411 Turner v Morgan (1808) 8 Ves Jun 143, 234 Twentieth Century Bank Corp Ltd v Wilkinson [1977] Ch 99, 479 Union Assurance Society of Canton v The Hong Kong Land Co Ltd [1977] HKLR 597; (1978) 8 HKLJ 230, 280 United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1995] 2 All ER 973, 447 United Dominions Trust Ltd v Shell Point Trustees Ltd [1993] 3 All ER 310, 293 Vane v Lord Barnard (1716) 2 Vern 738, 287 Vaudeville Electronic Cinema Ltd v Muriset [1923] 2 Ch 74, 13 Villar, re [1929] 1 Ch 243, 193 Viscount Hill v Bullock [1897] 2 Ch 482, 11 Voice v Bell (1993) 68 P&CR 441, 319, 322 Voyce v Voyce (1991) 62 P&CR 290, 148 Wagstaff Settled Estates, re [1909] 2 Ch 201, 214 Wah Ying Properties Ltd v Sound Cash Ltd [1994] 1 HKC 786, 71 Wakeham, re [1945] Ch 177, 215 Wakeham v Mackenzie [1968] 1 WLR 1175, 113 ‘Wallis’s Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Lid v Shell Mex & BP Ltd [1975] QB 94, 165, 166-167, 171 Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] 21 Ch D 9, 29, 91, 116, 117, 119, 120, 276, 303, 310, 327, 329, 354 Ward v Duncombe [1893] AC 369, 446 xxiiiHONG KONG LAND LAW xxiv Ward v Kirkland [1967] Ch 194, 332, 333 Warmington v Miller [1973] QB 887, 119 Warren v Kean [1954] 1 QB 15, 287, 288 ‘Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1995] 3 WLR 772, 16 Wayfoong Credit Ltd v Li Chi Kin (1985) HCt HCA No A1865, 465 Webb's Lease, re [1951] 1 Ch 808, 335 Wedd v Porter [1916] 2 KB 91, 288 ‘Wellmake Investments Limited v Chan Yiu Tong (1996) CA Civ App No 246 of 1995, 55, 63-64, 92, 500 ‘Welltech Investment Ltd v Easy Fair Industries Ltd (1996) HCt No A5853 of 1994, 405 ‘West v Williams [1899] 1 Ch 132, 484 ‘Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1, 465 Wetter Electric Ltd v Welsh Development Agency [1983] 2 WLR 897; [1983] QB 796, 284, 489 Whaley, re [1908] 1 Ch 615, 11 Wheeldon v Burrows (1878) 12 Ch D 31; (1879) 12 Ch D 31, 85, 330, 331, 332, 333, 336, 397, 403 Whitby v Mitchell (1890) 44 Ch D 85, 195 White Rose Cottage, re [1965] Ch 940, 469 White v Bijou Mansions Ltd [1938] Ch 351, 390, 391 White v City of London Brewery Co (1889) 42 Ch D 237, 468 White v Grand Hotel Eastbourne Ltd [1913] 1 Ch 113, 339 White's Settlement, re [1930] 1 Ch 179, 213 Wilford’s Estate, in re (1879) 11 Ch D 267, 252 Wilkes, in re [1891] 3 Ch 59, 250 Wilkes v Spooner [1911] 2 KB 473, 36-37 Wilkinson v Haygarth (1847) 12 QB 837, 232 William Brothers Direct Supply Ltd v Raftery [1958] 1 QB 159, 164-165, 168 William & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC 487; [1980] 3 WLR 138, 41, 43, 47, 81, 217, 218 Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 J & H 546, 245, Williams v Staite [1979] Ch 291, 154-155, 502 Willis v Stradling (1797) 3 res 378, 115 Wilmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch 96, 142 Winbase Industrial Ltd v Mightyton Property Management Ltd (1994) HCt HCA No A10232, 437 Winfield Investment Co Ltd v Henry Fok Estates Ltd [1966] HKLR 399, 306, 339 ‘Wing Ming Garment Factory Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Wing Ming Industrial Centre [1994] 2 HKC 748, 407 Winster Development Co Ltd v Pang Yin Chang [1993] 1 HKC 95, 359 Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd [1948] AC 173, 490-491 Wong Bei-nie v A-G [1973] HKLR 582, 306 ‘Wong Chim-ying v Cheng Kam-wing [1990] 2 HKLR 111; [1990] 1 HKC 418, 42 Wong Kam Lam v Well Win Investment Ltd [1995] 3 HKC 381, 394, 400 ‘Wong Kam-wing v Cyril Murkin (HK) Ltd [1989] 2 HKC 603, 51, 67, 69 Wong Kam-ying v Man Chi-tai [1967] HKLR 201, 9 Wong Kau v Wong Hsien-chau [1964] HKLR 422, 273 Wong Kwok-chiang & another v Longo Construction Ltd & another [1986] HKC 362; [1987] 3 HKC 34, 58 Wong Lai Fun v Le Ha [1992] HKLR 125, 119 ‘Wong Lai Ha v Chung Sau Wah [1994] HKC 646, 105 Wong Lai Suk Chun v Wong Chin Ming [1993] 1 HKC 522, 34 Wong Lai-ying v Chinachem Investments Go Ltd (1979) PC PApp No 9 of 1979, 300TABLE OF CASES Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd [1965] 1 QB 173, 334-335 Wong Wai-fong v Chung Ho [1960] DCLR 218, 279 Woo Turban & another v Taiwan Fuji Trading (HK) Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 481, 399-400 Woodhouse & Co Ltd v Kirkland (Derby) Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1185, 339 World Realty Ltd, The v Ngar Yin [1986] HKC 508; [1987] 3 HKC 148, 280, 299 Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313, 246 Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744, 323, 328 Wrotham Park Estates Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798, 375, 387 Wu Koon Tai and another v Wu Yan Loi [1995] 2 HKC 732, 102 Yale v MacMaster (1974) 46 DLR (3d) 167, 263 Yangtsekiang Garment Manufacturing Co Ltd v JM Ronald Denault & Scott Ltd [1977] HKLR 320, 105 Yau Fook Hong Co Ltd & another v Ng Kwan On & another [1995] HKD CLR 51, 438 Yau Fook-hong Co Ltd v A-G [1986] HKG 502; [1988] HKLR 196, 304 ‘Yau Fook-hong Co Ltd v Man Cheung Construction Company [1981] HKLR 60, 493, ‘Yeap Cheap Neo v Ong Cheung Neo (1875) LR 6 PC 381, 200 Yeung Kit Lam & another v Lau Yin Shing (1995) HCt MP No 3392 of 1994, 121 Yeung Siu Hong v Chan Siu Mee Sandie [1992] 2 HKC 559, 108 Yeung Wah v Alfa Sea Ltd [1993] 1 HKC 440, 280 Young v Young [1984] FLR 375, 244 ‘Yu Jing-jeun v Wong Pe-wun (1986) HCt No P2 of 1986, 57xxi TABLE OF LEGISLATION Acts 31 and 32 of Henry VIII, 259 ‘Age of Majority (Related) Provisions Ordinance No 32 of 1990 ss 8 and 21, 207 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, 17 Application of English Law Ordinance, 5-8, 190, 233, 234, 337 s 3(),7 s 3(2),7 34,6 Item 31, Sched, 297 Item 33 Sched, 298 Banking Ordinance, 484 Bankruptcy Ordinance, 33, 83 s 47(1), 84 s 490), 84 s 59, 300 Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special ‘Administrative Region, 304 Articles 120-123, 23, Building Management Ordinance, 403, 408, 424, 429-433, 436-440 s 2, 407 8 3A, 424 8 4, 424 ss 5-6, 424 s 140), 425 $s 14Q)-@), 425 8 15, 438 s 15(2), 438 s 16, 425, 430 s 18, 426 8 18(2)c, 430 s 18(4), 440 8 19, 428, 435, $s 20(2)-(4), 426 s 20(3) and (5), 427 ss 20-22, 430 ss 20-23, 427 s 20A(1), 426 8 21, 427 s 21(1A)(2)-(3), 428 s 2105), 440 s 22, 427 5 23, 438 s 24, 428, 438 s 27, 427 s 27(2), 439 s 27(5), 440 s 28(1), 439 8 29, 428 ss 30-31, 428 s 33, 428 s 34C(2), 440 's 34E, 430, 431, 438, 440 s 34E(2\(b), 431 s 34F, 422, 440 sub-s 34F(2), 423 8 34G, 435 s 34H, 404 s 341, 405 s 34, 440 s 34K, 424 's 341, 440 s 40, 404 s 45, 436, 437, 439 s 45(3), 438 5 454\)), 439 Second Sched, 424 Sth Sched, 427 Paras 1-6 7th Sched, 433 Para 7 7th Sched, 431 Para 7(5) 7th Sched, 431 Para 7(6) 7th Sched, 431 Para 8 7th Sched, 432 Eighth Sched, 422 Tenth Sched, 436 Para 1 10th Sched, 437 Para 2 10th Sched, 437 Para 3 10th Sched, 437 Para 4 10th Sched, 437 Para 5 10th Sched, 437 Para 6 10th Sched, 437 Para 7 10th Sched, 437 Para 8 10th Sched, 437, 439 Para 9 10th Sched, 437 Para 4(a) Tenth Sched, 437 Para 4(b)-(c) Tenth Sched, 437 Para 4(d) Tenth Sched, 437, 439 Buildings Ordinance, 70, 71, 86, 307, 404, 405, 429 s 26, 285 s 27, 285 5 33, 71 5 33(9), 83, 84, 469 Church of England Trust Ordinance, 302 Givil Aviation Act 1949 and the (Overseas Territories) Order 1969, 16 Companies Ordinance, 428 5 268, 300 Part V, 83, 84Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance, 434 Convention of Peking 1860, 22, 23 Convention of Peking 1898, Second, 22 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1881 5 58(1), 389 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, 4, 8, 242, 303, 442, 443; 444, 445, 447, 467, 469 8 2, 96, 99, 328, 441, 443 8 3, 95, 97, 101, 118, 217, 298, 446 s 31), 100, 108 s 3(2), 110 8 4, 95, 98, 258, 298, 327, 341, 423, s 4D, 95. s 42), 96, 106 s 4(2\d), 107 ss 4-5, 485 85, 95, 97, 127, 298 s 51), 120 s 51a), 99 s SCD), 97, 98 ss 5(2), 120 8 6, 95, 106 s 61), 106 $s 6(2), 107 87,95, 110 8 8, 253, 257 89, 243 s 9(3), 230 5 10, 230 s 10(3), 243 s 11, 230 8 13, 38, 158 8 14, 303, 304, 307, 445, 5 14A, 392 8 16, 120, 328, 332, 333-334 s 16(), 327 5 19, 96 8 24, 326 25(2), 241 s 26, 390, 412 $ 29, 295, 393 s 30, 359 8 31, 350, 356, 357, 467 ss 31-32, 359 8 32, 356, 467 8 35(Da, 348, 354, 368, 410 8 39, 353, 378, 388 s 40, 375, 389, 415 s 40(2), 353, 8 41, 85, 179, 348, 355, 370, 377, 387, 410, 411-415, 429, 435, 467, 468 ss 41(2), 423 TABLE OF LEGISLATION s 41(8), 348, 349, 368, 410 sub-s 41(1)a, 412-413, sub-s 41()b, 375 sub-s 41()ec, 372, 413 sub-s 41(2), 348, 370, 371, 377, 388, 411, 414 sub-s 41(2)a, 372 sub-s 41(2)c, 372, 374, 388 sub-s 41(3), 370, 377, 387, 388, 411 sub-s 41(4), 372, 416 sub-s 41(5), 372, 412 sub-s 41(7), 374, 413 sub-s 41(8), 377 sub-s 41(9), 377, 415 s 44, 248 s 441), 443, s 4403), 444 sub-s 44(2), 444 sub-s 44), 465 sub-s 44(4)a, 469 8 45, 482, 484 sub-s 45503), 483 3 46, 445 3 47, 463, 469 8 48, 244 8 49, 462 850, 477 s 50(2), 47 s 5006), 477 551, 465, 466, 467, 469, 477 s 51G), 469 8 5164), 465, 470 sub-s 53(1), 475 sub-s 53(2), 479 s 54, 467, 476, 477 8 55, 476 5 56, 464, 485 856A, 56 $58, 291, 308, 444 s 58(2), 293, 294 s 58(4), 293 $s 62, 253, 254, 297, 298, 470 s 622), 297 s 63, 216 Part I First Sched, 348, 354, 368, 410 CI@© Part C Second Sched, 464 CI) Part C Second Sched, 463 Form 1 Third Sched, 109, 415 Form 3 Third Sched, 109, 445 Forms 4-5 Third Sched, 443, 464, 469 Form 5 Third Sched, 483 Form 6 Third Sched, 485 Fourth Sched, 477, 479 Para 2 Fourth Sched, 465, 466 Para 4 Fourth Sched, 467 xxviiHONG KONG LAND LAW xxviii Para 8 Fourth Sched, 469, 470, 475 Para 11 Fourth Sched, 470, 479 Crown Lands Ordinance, 279 Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, 86, 221, 309 s 2(d), 309 Crown Lease Resumption Ordinance, 309 Crown Leases Ordinance, 175, 305, 307 8 5(2), 308 8 8, 290 5 15, 340, 391 Crown Rent and Premium (Apportionment) Ordinance, 354 Crown Rights Re-entry and Vesting (Remedies) Ordinance, 308 s 3, 308 s 6, 295 $8, 308 Defective Premises Act 1972, 285 Demolished Buildings (Redevelopment of Sites) Ordinance, 307 Distress for the Rent Act 1737 3 18, 298 District Court Ordinance 8 69, 292 s 69(2), 291 Electricity Network (Satutory Easements) Ordinance, 343, English Land Registration Act 1925 s 70(Dg, 80, 85 English Partition Act 1868, 262 Estate Duty Ordinance 5 3(1c, 70 85,70 s 18, 70 s 181), 70, 86 Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance, 15 Grantees of Reversions Act 1540, 356 Inland Revenue Ordinance 55, 469 Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 82,5 83,45 Intestates’ Estates Ordinance, 4, 33, 265 Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, 26 Land Acquisition (Possessory Title) Ordinance, 309 Land Charges Act 1972, 6, 48, 49, 62- 63 s 2), 496 5 207), 496 Land Development Corporation Ordinance 5 15, 309 Land Registration Act 1925, 6, 40, 41, 48, 74, 84 Land Registration Ordinance, 8, 34, 48-71, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 119, 257, 377 5 1A, 56 82,52 5 2A, 56 5 2AQ), 56 s 31), 65, 66-70, 3 5 32), 54, 58 70, 71, 377, 415 84,61, 64 55, 65, 51 8 5A, 51 s 14, 50 s 16, 57 ss 19-21, 57 Land Registration Regulations, 49 Land Transfer Acts 1862, 1875 and 1897, 74 Landlord and Tenant Act 1730, 297 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s 19()a, 313 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 111), 282 Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance, 4, 267, 298, 314 $ 523), 290 $93, 296 8 126, 290 Part I, 298, 311, 316 Part I-ll, 295, 315 Part Il, 280, 286, 298, 311, 316- 317 Part Ill, 295 Part IV, 295, 297, 314, 315, 316, 317, 347 Part IV-V, 297 Part V, 316, 317 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) ‘Act 1995, 347 s 2, 360 8 3, 353, 355, 356, 357 85, 348 88 6-8, 350 Lands Tribunal Ordinance s 8(9), 292Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance s13A, 111 Law of Property Act 1925, 5, 8, 20, 217, 259, 260 5 1(1), 185, 186, 191 s 13), 185, 186, 191 8 1), 102, 228 s (Gi), 217, 218 s 4(2), 184 8 23, 217 s 25(1), 213 8 25(2), 216 s 25(4), 213 ss 26(1)-(2), 216 8 26(3), 218 s 28(1), 215 s 283), 259 s 30, 259 5 32(1), 215 s 34, 228 s 34(2), 229 8 35, 229 s 36(1), 229 s 36(4), 253 s 38, 389 8s 39, 389 8 5300), 100 s 54, 107 s 56, 390 8s 62, 327, 328, 329, 332 8 78, 378, 379, 389 8 79, 375, 389 sub-s 84(1), 392 ss 85-87, 248 8 93, 482 8 99, 463 5 137, 445, s 139, 359 s 141, 350, 357, 362 s 142, 356 s 143, 393 $145, 275 s 146(2), 294 ss 149(1)-(2), 274 s 149(3), 274 8 1496), 275 s 154, 358 8 185, 300 8 199, 37 8 199(Dii, 37 8 205(1) (xix), 185 Law of Property (Enforcement of Covenants) Ordinance, 370, 411 Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989 82, 101, 111 TABLE OF LEGISLATION Law Reform and Amendment (Consolidated) Ordinance 89, 430 Limitation Act 1874, 159 Limitation Act 1980 s 4, 167 Limitation (Amendment) Ordinance 1991, 159, 160, 173 Limitation Ordinance, 83, 86, 87, 157, 158, 165, 167, 176, 177, 222, 485 84, 159 s 4), 159 $7, 158 8 81), 160 89,161 s 91), 178 $10, 158 s 12, 172, 173 s 13, 158, 160 s 14, 160 s 18, 173 $19, 159 s 20, 162 5 22, 162 s 26, 163 Marine Fish Culture Ordinance $12, 15 Married Persons Status Ordinance, 130, 236, 265, s 4), 200 8 6, 253, 264 $9, 133, 134 Married Woman's Property Act 1882, 265 817, 130 Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, 496 5 28), 496 Matrimonial Property and Proceedings Ordinance, 236, 264 Mining Ordinance 83,14 Money Lenders Ordinance, 448, 457 88 24-25, 457 s 25(3), 457 MTR (Land Resumption and Related Provisions) Ordinance, 309 Multi-storey Buildings (Owner's Incorporation) Ordinance, 436 s 18(De, 421 New South Wales Strata Titles Act 1973, 397 New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance, 22, 175, 308 $7, 9, 290, 340, 391 New Territories Ordinance 88, 22 sovixHONG KONG LAND LAW s 13, 9, 219, 220, 343 5 15, 225, 226 Part II, 85 New Territories (Renewable Crown Leases) Ordinance, 175, 176, 177, 180, 336 Road (Works Use and Compensation) Ordinance, 309 Sale of Goods Ordinance, 282 Settled Land Act 1925, 5, 153, 210, 211, 214, 215 s 4c, 176, 177 ss 38-39, 211 New Zealand Illegal Contracts Act ss 41-42, 211 1970 $71, 211 ss 6-7, 125 Singapore Land Titles (Strata) Act No 2 ‘of 1976, 397 Partition Act 1868, 259, 263 Partition Ordinance, 122, 223, 232, 259, 260, 263, 264 Singapore Land Titles (Strata) Act No 23 of 1982, 397 Statute of Anne, 234 520), Statute of Frauds 1677, 95, 100, 110, s 3, 259 113, ss 45, 261 Statute of Quia Emptores 1290, 20 s 4(2), 261 Statute of Uses 1525, 188, 189, 190 sub-s 4G), 260 Statute of Uses 1535, 27, 28 s 6(1), 261 Statute of Westminster II 1285, 233 5 63), 261 Statute of Wills 1530, 190 s 64), 263 Supreme Court Ordinance s 15, 260 ss 21F-21H, 292 Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 5 21G, 291 1964, 191 ‘Tenures Abolition Act 1660, 20 Treaty of Nanking, 21, 23 Perpetuities and Accumulations Ordinance, 8, 191, 196 s 1, 195 ‘Trustee Ordinance, 214 $6, 196 $2, 212 87,197 s 4, 215 ss 8(1)-(3), 196 s 4()b, 215 ss 8(4)-(5), 196 $13, 214 $9, 197 s 15(2), 216 s 10, 198 s 33, 200 s 11, 199 s 34, 207 s 17, 207 $56, 211, 215 s 18, 208 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Powers of Attorney Ordinance Trustees Act 1996, 210, 217 8 2, 424 88 5-6, 215 Prescription Act 1832, 337, 338 s 11, 218 5 2, 338 83, 338 Waterworks Ordinance, 14 Probate and Administration Ordinance ss 23-29, 14 s 62, 212 Wills Act 1530, 184 Public Health and Municipal Services Wills Act 1540, 20 Ordinance, 285 Wills Act 1837, 184, 190 ss 12-15, 285 Wills Ordinance, 4 8 47, 285 s 3, 184, 190 8 127, 285 Public Order Ordinance, 342 8 23, 290, 466 Rating Ordinance s 21, 468 Real Property Act 1845, 95 Rent and Premium (Apportionment) Ordinance, 305 ax2 Introduction 1.1. What is Land Law? Land law is concerned with the relationship of people to land. In Hong Kong, a number of people may have an interest in a particular piece of land. There is the owner of the land; there may be persons, or more commonly a bank, who have provided the money for the owner to buy the land; there is the person actually occupying the land, who may not be the owner of the land; and there will be people who come onto the land at the request of the owner or occupier. An owner of neighbouring land may also have an interest, in the form of rights over part of the land. He may also be able to prevent the owner from using the land in certain ways for the benefit of his adjoining land. All these people have some connection with the land—they all have some interest in it. It is these relationships of the involved people to the land and to each other that we will be concemed with in this book. Studying land law is similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle: it is not easy to find a place to start. It is often not until a good portion of the picture has taken shape that the relationships among the pieces are understood and appreciated. The traditional approach is to look first at the historical development of interests in land, through the doctrine of tenure and estates and the development of basic concepts inherent in ownership interests in land, The problem with this approach is that it can be a little tedious and off-putting to the new student. What, after all, does the ownership of a flat in Hong Kong have to do with the ownership of a castle in medieval England? The answer is quite a lot, but it is not necessary to appreciate this fact at the start of one’s study. ‘This introductory chapter looks at traditional concepts of tenure and estates and the development of equity, as well as other fundamental areas, namely the classification and definition of land and the sources of our law governing land. The new student should, initially, skim through this material and use it as a reference point, returning to it for a greater appreciation of the subject as his or her knowledge develops. 1.2. Classification of Property Land is not the only type of property. The average person will own or have some interest in a whole variety of things: a flat to live in, personal possessions such as clothes, furniture, and perhaps a car; cash and perhaps some investments such as shares in a company and/or an insurance policy, or an interest in a provident fund or retirement scheme. All these things come within the concept of property. They have common features but they differ in a number of ways too. The law, in regulating the relationship between people and property, identifies these similarities and differences, and thus property is classified in a number of ways.HONG KONG LAND LAW Property in English common law is traditionally classified into three categories: * real property, * personal property, and © chattels real. 1.2.1 Real Property In early common law, only certain legal actions were available to force a defendant to return property to its rightful owner. These actions were known as ‘real actions’ (in Latin, an action in rem). Real actions were only initially available in respect of freehold land, which was therefore classified as real property. The owner of freehold land who had been dispossessed by another thus could go to court to demand the eviction of a squatter. 1.2.2. Personal Property The owner of property other than freehold land could not always recover the property should he for some reason lose possession or control. This meant that real actions were not available to him. The best the court could do for him was to require the defendant either to return the property or pay the owner the value of the property. As the court order was directed to the defendant personally the action became known as the ‘personal action’ (in atin, an action in personam). Thus the expression ‘personal property’ is used to classify all property falling outside the realm of real property. 1.2.3 Chattels Real Although frechold property enjoyed the benefit of real actions, it suffered from a number of disadvantages that encouraged the creation of an interest in land which fell outside the freehold system. This was the lease. Initially, the common law regarded the lease as no more than a personal contract between the parties by which the owner of land permitted someone else to occupy the land. The occupier or lessee might recover possession of the land from the owner or his heirs who had breached their agreement to lease, but could not recover possession from a third party. Only personal actions were available to the lessee. ‘Thus leases were initially regarded purely as personal property. The common law gradually developed actions that enabled the lessee under a lease to recover possession of the land against a wider circle of defendants and, by the end of the 15th century, with the writ of ejectment a lessee was able to recover possession against anyone who might dispossess him. Although the lessee now had a real action, leases were not admitted to the realm of real property. However, it was clear that the position of leases as personalty was anomalous. Some distinction had to be made, and thus a separate category of property on the borders of real and personal property was created to accommodate the lease. Leases came to be classified as chattels real to mark their hybrid nature. Within the traditional classifications of realty and personalty, property is divided into tangible and intangible categories,INTRODUCTION 124 Corporeal and Incorporeal Hereditaments Atcommon law, the word ‘hereditament’ denoted property that descended to an heir on intestacy, ie realty as opposed to personalty. Traditionally hereditaments are classified as either corporeal or incorporeal. Corporeal hereditaments relate to the physical characteristics of the land over which rights may be exercised and include the land itself; buildings erected on the land; minerals under the surface of the land; and crops, trees, or other vegetation growing on the land. Incorporeal hereditaments encompass rights that are exercisable over the land, the most important of which are easements (see Chapter 13). 1.25 Choses in Possession and Choses in Action Personalty is also classified into things that are tangible and things that are intangible. Choses in possession are those moveable objects such as books, cars, clothes, and jewellery that can be physically possessed. Choses in action are a little more difficult to define. They encompass intangible rights in personal property, such as copyrights, patents, and company shares. They also include the fruits of rights that can only be claimed by taking action (as opposed to physical possession). The most common example of a chose in action is a debt. A traditional property classification can thus be summarised diagrammatically as follows: Fig 1.1 Property Classification Real Property Personal Property Chattels Real Corporeal Heriditaments In Possession In Action Incorporeal Heriditaments hoses, }| Choses| 1.2.6 New Classifications of Property? The traditional classification of property is important because it is within these categories that the law has evolved. Many of the developments in land law depend upon these traditional distinctions, and the traditional terminology persists. But these categories are no longer very useful in identifying the distinct characteristics of property rights today. Personal property may now be recovered by action. The devolution of property on death, which used to mark one of the major distinctions between personal and real property,HONG KONG LAND LAW is now governed by common rules which in Hong Kong are to be found in the Wills Ordinance' and the Intestates Estates Ordinance.’ Also the term ‘hereditament’ has lost much of its significance now that there is no difference between the devolution of real and personal property on death, and is not often used, The enforceability and transmissibility of different interests in property is more helpful in identifying the vital distinctions between proprietary and personal rights? For instance, one important current issue is the status of licences over land. These have traditionally been classified as personal rights, but because they have in certain circumstances bound third parties, the question arises whether they should now be regarded as proprietary in nature. But even the tests of enforceability and transmissibility are under challenge with the emergence of new rights which, though enjoyed only by the original grantee, are nevertheless valuable assets: for instance a provident fund entitlement or a tenancy that is protected under the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance* ‘The fact is that our rapidly changing world calls for changing perceptions of our concepts of property. 1.2.7 The Hong Kong Perspective It may come as a surprise to many that when studying land law in Hong Kong we are not concemed with real property. We may call builders ‘real estate developers’ and land sales agents ‘real estate agents’, but they do not develop or sell real estate. They should more correctly be called ‘chattel real developers’ and ‘chattel real agents’, for almost all land in Hong Kong is leasehold. But the expression ‘chattels real’ is a mouthful and it is tempting to use familiar terms. However, it is important for the student or lawyer negotiating the intricacies of property law to remember that land in Hong Kong does not fall within the traditional classification of real property. Itis the distinction between personal property and chattels real, rather than real and personal property, that is of importance in Hong Kong. The terms ‘moveable’ and ‘immoveable property’ are adopted in most ordinances, although the ordinance with which we will be most concerned, the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance’ prefers the term ‘land’. The difference is merely a matter of terminology for the statutory definitions of ‘land’ and ‘immovable property’ are almost identical: land includes: (a) land covered by water; (b) any estate, right, interest or easement in or over land; (bb) the whole or part ofan undivided share in land and any estate, right, interest, or easement in or over the whole or part of an undivided share in land; and 1 Cap 30 2 Cap 73 3 See Lawson: Principles of Property Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1958), Chapter 2. 4 Cap7 5 See s 3 Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance Cap 1 S See s 2 Cap 219.INTRODUCTION (©) things attached to the land or permanently fastened to anything attached to the land.” ‘The definitions include both the tangible and intangible aspects of property rights in land. Paragraphs (a) and (c) identify the physical state of the land, while paragraphs (b) and (bb) look to the intangible rights that can exist in or over land. Moveable property is simply defined to include all property other than land.* All these definitions are useful for illustrating the nature of land but it must be remembered that they provide only a legislative definition nota legal classification. The purpose of these definitions is solely to clarify the meaning of a legislative provision when the term ‘land’ or ‘immoveable property’ is used. 1.3. Sources of Hong Kong Land Law It is impossible to embark on the study of a subject without an idea of its sources. A detailed study of the sources of Hong Kong law is certainly outside the scope of this book, but a brief review is useful. There are three main sources of land law in Hong Kong: * English law; * local legislation and case law; and © Chinese customary law. 13.1 Application of English Law? 13.1.1 English Legislation ‘The application of English legislation in Hong Kong changed dramatically in 1966 with the enactment of the Application of English Law Ordinance.” Itis important, however, to be aware of the application of English legislation before this change. (a) Pre-1966 position Hong Kong is a ceded colony. At the date of its cession, which is normally taken to be 5 April 1843, the laws of England then in force were applied so far as suitable to the circumstances of Hong Kong and its inhabitants. This meant that statutes that were in force in England on that day were incorporated into Hong Kong law unless they were unsuited to Hong Kong, or its inhabitants. Statutes passed in England after that date were not incorporated into Hong Kong law unless they necessarily applied because 7 See s 2 Cap 219. The definition in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance does not include para (bb). 8 See s 3 Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance Cap 1 9 ‘A detailed examination of the reception of English law is found in Professor Wesley Smith's article “The Reception of English Law in Hong Kong’ (1988) 18 HKIJ 183. 0 Cap 88HONG KONG LAND LAW of their terms, or were specifically applied by prerogative legislation or by the enactment of a local ordinance. (b) — Post-1966 ‘The difficulty of establishing the extent and content of pre-1843 legislation led to the enactment in 1966 of the Application of English Law Ordinance. Section 4 of that ordinance applies such English statutes as are set out in the schedule to the ordinance (subject to such modification as local circumstances may require) or which are applied to Hong Kong by Order in Council, by local ordinance, or by the enactment itself either expressly or by necessary implication. The full text of pre-1843 legislation which is applied expressly by the ordinance is found in Appendix IIA to the Laws of Hong Kong, and there isa comparative table of English legislation that has been incorporated into Hong Kong law by local ordinances in Appendix IIB. Hong Kong law has not embraced many of the more recent legislative changes introduced in England, and only some of the far-reaching property reforms of the 1925 property legislation have been incorporated." Hong Kong law governing priorities, co-ownership, and settlements are examples of areas which now differ significantly from current English law. Particular care, therefore, is required in reading English cases and land law materials, and it is often the older cases and materials that provide a more accurate guide to the Hong Kong position. It is necessary always to check first whether or nota certain statute has been incorporated into Hong Kong law by reference to the Appendices to the Laws of Hong Kong. (© Applicable pre-1843 English legislation The schedule to the Application of English Ordinance appears simple: if the enactment is not listed in the schedule it should have no application to Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the matter is not so simple. What, for instance, is the position where a pre-1843 statute was applicable to the circumstances of Hong Kong and had, prior to 1966, been part of Hong Kong law but does not appear in the schedule? Prima facie it does not apply and the law has been changed at a stroke of the legislative pen. Unfortunately that stroke may have the effect of turning the clock back to the common law that was in force many years ago when quite different social, economic, and political conditions prevailed. Furthermore, the background to the development of the law in a particular area may be altered by the removal of an influential enactment. It can then be difficult to make sense of the altered scene. Given the long history of the common law relating to land we will encounter several areas where this problem arises. The problem may be overcome where the omitted statute abolished a common law or equitable rule, for it is an accepted rule that the repeal of 1 The Land Registration Act 1925, the Land Charges Act 1972, and the Settled Land Act 1925 do not apply to Hong Kong, and only some of the Law of Property Act 1925 provisions applyINTRODUCTION a statute cannot revive the rule it abolished." Thus, if a statute allowed the exercise of a right that the common law had removed, the Application of English Law Ordinance has not resurrected the limitation that the repealed statute removed. But this rule is no comfort where the discarded statute created a right or obligation not recognised at common law.” 1.3.1.2 Common Law and Equity Section 3(1) of the Application of English Law Ordinance provides that the common law and rules of equity shall be in force in Hong Kong so far as they apply to the circumstances of Hong Kong and its inhabitants, and subject to such modification as circumstances require or as may be amended by any legislation applicable in Hong Kong, ‘The application of the common law is not limited in time. Developments inthe common law also apply to Hong Kong, subject only to their applicability to the local scene. Thus it is not the common law as at 1843 that is applicable to Hong Kong but the common law in its current state of development. The common law and rules of equity applicable to Hong Kong are not affected by any legislative amendment that there may have been or may be made by statute in England unless the statute is itself incorporated into Hong Kong law." This provision presents the difficulty of establishing exactly what the common law was before a statute, which does not apply to Hong Kong, was passed. That may be easy where the statute is recent but where it was passed many years ago the task is difficult and the result could be bizarre, Was it really intended that we should turn back the clocks in some areas to the 15th or 16th century? Land law is unfortunately one of the areas where ancient statutes still operate and where this question is particularly pertinent. Some assistance is derived from the rule, already noted, that the repeal of a statute does not revive anything that the statute abolished, but problems persist where the statute created a right or obligation that did not exist at common law."* ‘The rules of common law and equity applicable in Hong Kong may be affected by decisions of the English courts provided that the decision does not turn upon a statutory provision that is enforced in England and not in Hong Kong. There is some difference of opinion as to whether all decisions of the Privy Council, as the highest court in Hong Kong, are binding on the Hong Kong courts. Certainly decisions of the Privy Council on appeals from Hong Kong are binding, but the applicability of decisions from other jurisdictions may be limited to cases where the law at issue in the case is the same or very similar. The creation of a final court of appeal for Hong Kong should remove these uncertainties; Privy Council decisions will become merely persuasive. { i 2 Oceania Manufacturing Co v Pang Kwong-bon (1979) HKLR 445 13 See Wesley Smith: ‘The Effect of Pre-1843 Acts of Parliament in Hong Kong’ (1984) 14 HKLJ 142. 4 See's 3(2) Cap 88. 35. See Wesley Smith (1984) 15. "The Effect of Pre-1843 Acts of Parliament in Hong Kong’ 14 HKI 142HONG KONG LAND LAW The decisions of the House of Lords are not binding in Hong Kong but are of very strong persuasive authority, given the similar membership of the House of Lords and the Privy Council. ‘The decisions of the English Court of Appeal and High Courts are only persuasive, with, needless to say, the decisions of the higher court given more weight." Decisions of the courts in other common law jurisdictions are also of persuasive authority, and indeed prove particularly useful in areas of land law where the position in the relevant jurisdiction is closer to that of Hong Kong than the prevailing English position. ‘The English common law and equity can only be applied as appropriate to the circumstances of Hong Kong. The courts have adopted a strict test only if the rule will cause hardship or oppression will it not apply in Hong Kong.” 1.3.2 Hong Kong Ordinances and Case Law 1.3.2.1 Hong Kong Ordinances England had its property revolution in 1925, but Hong Kong waited until 1984 to follow suit with the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance.® Even then the full breadth of the 1925 property reforms was not enacted simply because they are not applicable to the differing circumstances of Hong Kong in the late 20th century. Only selected provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925 have been enacted, and in some cases the provisions have been amended and updated. The Conveyancing and Property Ordinance goes further than merely enacting selected provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925. It also introduces reforms unique to Hong Kong, and consolidates existing provisions relating to property that were scattered through a number of ordinances. ‘There are, of course, a range of other ordinances, some of which duplicate current English legislation. An example is the Perpetuities and Accumulations Ordinance.” Others are derived from earlier English or colonial legislation, which have been repealed in their country of origin. An example is the Land Registration Ordinance. 1.3.2.2 Hong Kong Decisions There is a growing body of Hong Kong case law in the property area. As far as possible reference will be made to Hong Kong decisions, but inevitably decisions from other jurisdictions are relied on extensively. "6 de Lasalav de Lasala (1979) 2. All ER 1146 1 See, for instance, Kan Fat-tat v Kan Yin-tat (1987) HKLR 516. 8 Cap 219 Cap 257 2 Cap 128INTRODUCTION 1.3.3. Chinese Customary Law Chinese customary law continues to operate in the New Territories. The New Territories Ordinance ® recognises the continued force of Chinese | customary law in relation to land in the New Territories, and where | customary law is applicable the courts are obliged to give effect to it” Not all land in the New Territories falls within the operation of s 13 of { the New Territories Ordinance, however. There is power under s 7 to exclude grants of land from the operation of the ordinance. Grants of land | in New Kowloon are exempted and a few grants in the rest of the New Territories have been exempted ona case by case basis, but the vast majority of the land in the New Territories falls within the operation of the ordinance and is subject to Chinese customary law. There is perhaps a need for more widespread exemption of land from Chinese customary law, given the widespread urbanisation of the New Territories. Where customary law does operate, it primarily affects family matters including marriage, adoption, divorce, and succession (all of which are outside the scope of this book). But customary law does continue to play arole in the holding of tong and 1so land, which we will consider in Chapter 9. Chinese law and custom is to be found in the Codes of the Qing dynasty as supplemented by customary rules. Chinese customary law is not fixed. Unlike the English law concept of customary law, it does not need to have existed from time immemorial. It may vary from locality to locality or even from one clan or family group to another. It may also adapt to changing circumstances by evolution rather than any procedural process ofamendment. At one time it was thought that Chinese customary law should be frozen in the 1840s but it is now accepted that it may develop with changing | circumstances in Hong Kong.” It is not easy to find out exactly what the customary law is, and when a case comes to court much reliance is placed upon: the evidence of recognised experts on the subject. 1.4 Physical Limits of Land ‘Atcommon law the principle is that the ownership of a piece of land includes everything above the land and everything beneath the land, However, there are now so many limitations on this general principle that we must look a little more carefully at exactly what the ownership of a piece of land includes. 14.1 Buildings Land includes any buildings thatare erected on the land. In H most buildings comprise many storeys, and although the roof of building may “\ 2 Section 13 of Cap 97 2 “Tang Kai-chung v Tang Chik-shang [1970] HKLR 276 2 Wong Kam-ying v Man Chi-tai (19671 HKLR 201 ©{ HONG KONG LAND LAW 2} bea long way from the ground it is considered part of the land, Many people wish to own a part of a multi-storey building — indeed there are few people in Hong Kong who can afford to purchase a whole building! The horizontal \Downership of a piece of airspace of underground terrain is possible, but is, | ~ fraught problems: that ownership is dependenton the support of the | ownership of the airs oil below and the protection of the airspace ' w or soil abo In Hong Kong the its_ina_multj-storey, building is Jc) achieved though the Taw of co- (see Chapter 10).'England has also been reluctant to develop the ontal-ownership-of- piece of airspace. Although ‘flying freeholds’, as they are known, do exist, the ownership structure of a multi-storey building in England is usually achieved through the.use of leases. Other jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore have developed systems to overcome the problems of the horizontal ownership of airspace through the adoption of the concept of strata titles.* The vertical division of the ownership of a piece of land into a number of smaller lots causes few problems other than one of degree. There can come a point where it is impossible to divide a piece of land-into-smalter parts, simply because of the difficulty of accurately identifying the boundaries of that land. for instance, in Hong Kong it has been decided that it is “impossible to’own the bare surface of a wall as opposed to the wall itself. 14.2 — Fixtures A chattel, when it becomes attached to the land or a building which forms part of the land, may also become part of the land. When a chattel becomes | part of the land by attachment it is known as.afixture’. Whether or not a chattel becomes a fixture will depend upon the intention with which the chattel was brought onto the land. If it was brought onto the land with the intention of its forming part of the land it will become a fixture. There are two tests to be applied to ascertain the owner's intention: first, the degree of annexation, and second, the purpose of annexation. 1.43 Degree of Annexation Prima facie the affixing of a chattel to the land will point to an intention that it is to be incorporated into the land. It is for the party claiming that the chattel has remained as such to prove that it is not-a fixture. On the other hand, if the chattel is not annexed to the land as such but-merely-rests-on the land by its own weight, the presumption is that-it-remains.a-chattel. In this case, a party claiming that it is a fixture must bear the burden of proof. One of the justifications for the degree of annexation test was the fact thata chattel that was firmly affixed was likely-to be more difficult to remove without damaging the land or the chattel itself. Advances in technology 24 England is contemplating introducing a strata title system known as ‘Commonhold’ 2 Leung Kwok-kau v Tam So-wa (1968 HKLR 673 10INTRODUCTION make it much easier to affix and rem ve chanel without damaging helen i 14.4 Purpose of Annexation ‘The decisive test to establish whether there is sufficient intention for a chattel to become a fixture is to consider the purpose of annexation. Even | if a chattel is attached quite firmly to the land it will not qualify as a fixture | if the reason it was so attached was for the better enjoyment of the chattel \ rather than the better enjoyment of the land (Thus, for instance, a machine it Operation but with the ultimate intentior laced on the ground so that it can be better operated, will remain ? put where a machine is fixed to the ground not just to assist in improving the value of the ikewise tapestries, pictures, or other works of art that are fixed firmly to/the wall may remain chattels where it can be established that the reason they were attached was to be better enjoyed as works of art. On the other hand, statues that rest by their own weight on the ground may be placed there as part of the overall ! architectural design of the property, pointing to an intention that they should become fixtures in spite of their 1a¢K of attachment to the land.” | | property, the machine will become a fixtur guide to the party’s intention, it is a test still fraught with difficulty. The test ( | | Although the purpose of annexation is now considered the decisive ' | can become somewhat circular, for the purpose of attaching most articles to the land is to improve the enjoyment of the land in some way. Various. factors may, however, -helpto pinpoint whether the ultimate object of annexation was for the better enjoyment of the chattel or the land. For instance, if the article is only placed on the land temporarily it is likely that it was not intended to become part of the land since its removal is anticipated. If an article cannot be enjoyed on its own as a chattel but only as part of the land, then the inference is likely to be that article has become t a fixture, since its only purpose can be to improve enjoyment of the land. ‘The tests are easy to state but their application is often far from easy. The difficulties are neatly illustrated by a number of cases in Hong Kong which consider whether or not various types of air-conditioners are fixtures. ee, 1 rene Loong v Pun annenet 1959] DCLR 192 t FACTS ‘The defendant rented property from the plaintiff where he ran a ballroom. He hired four ‘window type’ air-conditioners, which were installed by the Hulme v Brightman (1943] KB 152 Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7CP 328 \ Ct viva Estates Gaz 39; and Viscount Hill v Bullock [1897] 2 Ch 482 2 DEyncourt v Gregory (18661 LR 3 Eq 283 and Re Whaley [1908] 1 Ch 615 Leigh v Taylor (19021 AC 157; Berkley v Poulett (1976] 241 Estates Gaz 911 and 242 11