Hong Kong Land Law Past Papers (2023-2007) (1) - 1-70

PCLL CONVERSION EXAMINATION JUNE 2023
Title of Paper : Hong Kong Land Law
Date : 14 June 2023
Time : 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. (Reading Time)

1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Instructions
1. This is an open book examination.
2. Write your candidate number on the cover of each answer book. Do NOT write
your name anywhere in the answer book.
3. Write your answers only in the answer books provided. Start each answer on a separate
page of the answer book.
4. This is a one and a half-hour examination. In addition, there is 15 minutes’ reading

time. Do NOT begin writing in the answer book until you are instructed to do so.
5. This paper consists of 6 pages. Candidates are required to attempt any TWO out of
three questions. Where a question is in two or more parts, all parts must be answered.
6. Candidates must give reasons for all their answers.
7. The total worth of this paper is 100 marks. Each question carries 50 marks.
8. Candidates must score at least 50 out of 100 marks to pass this paper.
DO NOT OPEN THIS QUESTION BOOK

UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO
1
PCLL Conversion Examination June 2023
Hong Kong Land Law
Question 1 (50 marks)
(a) A&A Ltd is the owner of a unit on the 5/F (and roof) of a 5-storey building constructed on
Marine Lot 299, which is located on Connaught Road West. On the Crown Lease (dated
1st April 1935) of the said lot, there is the following covenant:
"that (the said Lessee) or any other person or persons shall not nor will during the
continuance of this demise, use, exercise, or follow, in or upon the demised premises
or any part thereof, the trade or business of a Brazier, Slaughterman, Soapmaker,
Sugar-baker, Fellmonger, Melter of Tallow, Oilman, Butcher, Distiller, Victualler1 or
Tavern-keeper, Blacksmith, Nightman, Scavenger or any other noisy noisome or
offensive trades or business whatever without the previous licence of Her said Majesty
signified in writing by the Governor or other person duly authorized in that behalf”
Can A&A Ltd operate a high class restaurant and bar in the said unit in the said Building?
Would there be any breach of the said covenant above (including any arguable defence
you can think of)? Would there be any measures which A&A Ltd can make to achieve
their objective of operating a restaurant and bar in the building on the said lot?
(16 marks)
(b) Flat 3B is owned by Mr. Chang. Sane Finance Ltd (“the Creditor”) had loaned HK$5
million to Mr. Chang in January 2023 (“the Loan”), and Mr. Chang has been late in making
his quarterly repayment instalments to the Creditor. There are rumours spreading that Mr.
Chang may be in financial difficulty, and under criminal investigation for various financial
crimes in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Upon investigations, the Creditor has
discovered the following today:
- There is a mortgage with A-Level Bank, dated 2nd March 2015 for HK$16 million
(“Mortgage A). It was registered on 3rd March 2015. It is believed Mr. Chang has
paid off HK$8 million of the mortgage.
- There is a charging order of HK$3 million dated 5th April 2017, in favour of the
Street Finance Ltd (“the SF CO”). It was registered on 5th June 2017, and re-
registered on 5th April 2022.
- There is a lis pendens registered on 17th May 2023 (“the Lis Pendens”) . It concerns
the Incorporated Owners of the building which Flat 3B is in, seeking an injunction
to remove illegal structures in the balcony of Flat 3B.
- The person close to Mr. Chang has tipped off the Creditor that Mr. Chang is close
to obtaining a 2nd mortgage from Bob Bank for Flat 3B for a total amount of HK$13
million, of which HK$8 million would be used to pay off Mortgage A. Due to the
recent rapid ascent of interest rates, senior management of Bob Bank needs to give
1
A supplier of victuals, i.e. a person whose business is the provision of food and drink (Shorter Oxford
Dictionary)
2
final approval of the mortgage. The final approval is expected to come through 1-2
weeks later, and only thereafter would monies be released to the respective lawyers
of A-Level Bank and Mr. Chang (as stakeholders).
- In the event of a mortgagee (or other creditor) sale of Flat 3B by court order, the
expected sale price would be no more than HK$16 million.
Assuming the Creditor can obtain a charging order nisi within the next 5 days, advise
the Creditor on where it stands, in terms of priority, amongst all the other creditors.
(16 marks)
(c) Shaw Sisters Building (“the Building”) was built in 1977. Its DMC (and the first
assignment), makes no express reference to the external walls as common area or
privately owned. Clause 13 of the DMC is very clear that no person shall make
structure alterations whether inside their exclusively owned units or in the common
areas. The Building has been well managed by Fong’s Property Services Ltd (“Fong’s).
This was until 2013, when the co-owners incorporated (“the IO”) then replaced Fong’s
Property Services Ltd with Chan’s Shell Properties Ltd (“CSF”). CSF and the IO left
the Building in disrepair. It was not until after the pandemic, was the management
committee of the IO and CSF replaced. Fong’s was reinstated as the manager and has
informed the management committee of a problem with the 1/F Unit. The previous
management committee and CSF failed to stop the owner of the 1/F, Mr. Chu (“Mr.
Chu”) carving out 3 large windows in the external wall on the 1/F façade2 (front wall)
of the Building. Upon checking the records, indeed there is correspondence where Mr.
Chu informed the IO of the proposed modifications of the external walls, and that it
would carry ahead unless there were objections. However, the IO nor CSF gave any
reply. At the material time, Mr. Chu also had provided proof that the Building Authority
permitted the modifications. The IO and Fong’s now seek your advice if there is breach
of DMC and, if so, whether the 1/F façade can be restored to its original design.
(18 marks)
Question 2
(a) Victor is the owner of Flat B on 5th Floor of Happy Building and he listed his flat for
sale. Paul was interested to buy Victor’s flat. When Victor and Paul were about to sign
the provisional agreement at the agent’s office, Paul recalled his cousin, who has a law
degree, told him that a keen purchaser should always delete the double deposit clause
to protect the purchaser’s position. Hence Paul requested for the deletion of the double
deposit clauses in the provisional agreement. Victor and Paul signed a provisional sale
and purchase agreement on 14 April 2023 with the initial deposit of HK$500,000 paid
by Paul on the following terms:-
1. The Vendor, Victor Leung shall sell and the Purchaser, Paul Chan shall purchase
Flat B on 5th Floor of Happy Building, 123 Happy Street Hong Kong. (“the
Property”).
2
Front Wall on the entrance side of the Building
3
2. The purchase price of the Property shall be HK$10,000,000, which shall be paid by
the Purchaser to the Vendor in the manner as follows:
i. HK$500,000 as initial deposit shall be paid upon the signing of this

Agreement as deposit;
ii. HK$500,000 shall be paid as the further deposit on 2 May 2023; and
iii. HK$9,000,000 shall be paid on completion on or before 7 July 2023 as

balance of purchase price.
On 2 May 2023, Paul forgot to pay the further deposit to Victor. Paul sent a cheque for
the further deposit of HK$500,000 to Victor on 3 May 2023. On 3 May 2023, Victor
returned the cheque for the further deposit to Paul with a letter. In the letter, Victor
wrote that he regarded Paul had committed a wrongful repudiation of the provisional
agreement by failing to pay the further deposit. Hence, Victor would terminate the
provisional agreement, forfeit the initial deposit and reserve his rights to claim damages
from Paul for his breach of the provisional agreement.
The property market is rising and Victor can easily sell his flat for more than
HK$10,000,000 to another purchaser.
Paul wrote back to Victor on 4 May 2023 claiming that Victor is not entitled to forfeit
the deposit. Paul also threatened that he would apply for specific performance of the
provisional agreement.
Advise Victor as to the claims raised in Paul’s letter of 4 May 2023. (20 marks)
(b) Unlucky Heights (“the Building”) was built in 1997. Several years after entering into
occupation of its unit Kenneth found that the manager, K2 Management Ltd (“the
Manager”), to be very lazy. Further, many co-owners suspect that the manager has been
overcharging the co-owners for services supplied to the Building. Upon perusing the
DMC, he found a covenant to the effect that the owners may only terminate the
Manager’s appointment with a resolution supported by 2/3 of the Building’s total
undivided shares. While Kenneth is very sure he can secure a resolution with over ½ of
the total undivided shares, he is unsure about 2/3 support. Advise Kenneth on the best
course of action in terminating the Manager’s appointment. (12 marks)
(c) Developer B in 1972 struck a deal with the government, and exchanged a lot it held on
Prince Edward Road West, for a lot on Jordan Road. On 3rd June 1972, it executed the
Conditions of Exchange with the government. It subsequently built BB Tower in 1975
on the lot. Did Developer B receive a legal or equitable interest under the Conditions
of Exchange in 1972? (6 marks)
(d) Following the facts of (c) above, it is now 2023 and Mr. Chan is the owner of unit 4B
of BB Tower. Mr. Chan wishes to sell his flat. How can he prove that he holds the legal
interest in his flat. (12 marks)
4
(a) Lo & Behold Building (“the Building”) was constructed in 1979 and is situated in a
relatively quiet side of Sheung Wan. It has a deed of mutual covenant (DMC) and only
recently incorporated in March 2023 ( “the IO”). The IO employs a manager for the
building, Margins Management Ltd (“the Manager”). Mr. Gun is the recently appointed
chairperson of the management committee of the IO.
The DMC does not contain any plan or verbal description of the common parts of the
building.
The covenant and provisions in the DMC include the following:

1. The external walls are common parts;
2. No structural alterations are to be made to any flat;
3. No alteration is to be made to the external appearance of the building;
4. No owner or occupier may interfere with the common parts of the building;
5. No owner or occupier shall cause nuisance or annoyance to any other owner or
occupier of the building; and
6. No structures or fixtures or items shall be affixed to the external walls of the
Building.
Between 2010 to 2023, the Building was poorly managed as many of the owners were
indifferent as to the living conditions and only was interested in selling their flat quickly
for a profit. It was not until after formation of the IO, did the IO and the Manager
properly consider the many problems in the building. The IO and the Manager seek
your advice on the following:
(i) Mr. Chan of Flat 12B had erected a mobile phone antenna on the external wall
(just next to Flat 12B’s living room window). Since 2013, he has received
HK$1000 each month from a middleman arranging for installation of mobile
phone antennas on behalf of various mobile network operators. The IO asks for
your opinion on whether there are breaches of the DMC, and if so, what
remedies are available to the IO. (20 marks)
(ii) The House Rules of the Building are drafted and regularly updated by the
Manager. The House Rules are contained in a booklet which is available for
each owner’s perusal in the lift lobby, and also on the Manager’s website. The
House Rules and the covenants in the DMC are silent as to whether owners may
keep pets. Throughout the years many owners have kept all sort of pets, mostly
cats and dogs. There have never been any complaints about pets until Mr. Lung
moved in. Mr. Lung, who recently purchased 2 units of the Building, has a small
dog who has caused trouble to other owners. Mr. Lung has a habit of walking
his dog in the hallways, fire exit staircases, and lift lobby of the Building. There
have been instances of the said dog biting or frightening young children, and
soiling of hallways and fire exit staircases.
The Manager have received numerous complaints from residents regarding Mr.
Lung’s dog. They seek your advice on what they can do. (14 marks)
5
(iii) A land search reveals that the land on which the Building sits is on Inland Lot
123 on a 999-year term Crown Lease lease signed on 3rd January 1912. Explain
whether it would be necessary for a potential purchaser of a unit of the Building
to demand for production of a ‘certificate of compliance’ from its existing
owner in proving title/ownership? (6 marks)
(b) Bosco, the owner of Flat B on 15th Floor of Happy Building intended to sell her flat.
On 1 June 2023, he met his neighbor, Kelly in the lift lobby. Bosco told Kelly his
intention to sell his flat. Kelly immediately offered to buy Bosco’s property at HK$14
million. Bosco was taken by surprise but immediately said yes to Kelly. Bosco
immediately took out a piece of paper from his brief case and wrote the following and
signed on the paper:
Kelly Cheung agrees to buy from Bosco Wong Flat B on 15th Floor of Happy Building
at HK$14 million.
Dated 1 June 2023

Signed: Kelly Cheung
Bosco is having second thoughts on selling at that price, as just last week there was a
transaction price for a flat with the exact same layout and just one floor below him sold
at HK$15 million. Can Bosco back out of his deal with Kelly? (10 marks)
~ End of Examination Paper ~
6
PCLL CONVERSION EXAMINATION JANUARY 2023
Date : 5 January 2023

1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Instructions
2. Write your candidate number on the cover of each answer book. Do NOT write
your name anywhere in the answer book.
4. This is a one and a half-hour examination. In addition, there is 15 minutes’ reading

time. Do NOT begin writing in the answer book until you are instructed to do so.

1
PCLL Conversion Examination January 2023
Hong Kong Land Law
Answer Two Questions out of Three
(a) “Leung Shing Tso” (the “Tso”) is a relatively small Chinese Customary Trust in the New
Territories. It holds little land and assets, save for four hectares of land near the border,
in the area of Lau Fau Shan/Lung Kwu Tan (“the Land”). The registered managers of the
Tso are Gus Leung and Mike Leung (the “Managers”). Through estate agents, the
Managers have learnt that the Land is attractive to various property developers in Hong
Kong, in light of its “strategic location” and hence development potential.
The Managers told the agent that most of the beneficiaries of the Tso are either residing
in the PRC or can no longer be found as they have lost contact with many distant relatives.
As they now approach the age of 80s, the Managers intend to ‘wind up’ the Tso by selling
off all its properties and distribute the proceeds before they retire and reside in the
Mainland. They intend to put up the Land for sale at HK$15,000,000 which is said to be
a bargain when compared to market prices in the locality.
They seek your advice on the intended sale. To constitute a valid sale of the Land, will it
be sufficient for the Managers to just sign the draft sale and purchase agreement on behalf
of the Tso? If not, what formality or other matters of compliance would be required?
(10 marks)
(b) Big Spender Ltd (“BS Ltd”) has recently acquired the entire lot of land on which an
industrial building (the “Building”) consisting of workshops and storage warehouses has
been erected. The government lease, dated 3rd January 1980, stipulates that the
“..buildings are not to be used for any purpose other than industrial or godown purposes
or both excluding any trade that is offensive trade.”
The newly installed Deputy CEO of BS Ltd, Hugo, has ambitious plans. He plans to
convert five floors of the Building to establish one of the largest-scale indoor flower
farms. Vertical layers of ‘racks’ are to be installed to hold and grow the flowers. The
roots of each ‘plant’ would be submerged into nutrient solutions which are circulated by
a pump. The crops will be ‘illuminated’ by LED-powered lightings 24-hours a day. There
will also be climate control over the temperature and humidity of the vicinity. At the
bottom floor there will be a few aquariums (all over 10m long and 4m high), which will
collect water used to irrigate the flowers on the upper floors. The fish in the aquariums
will produce waste which can then be pumped back to feed the vegetables above. There
will be close monitoring of the flowers and real-time data would be provided to the
farmers. The goal is to farm high quality flowers without the use of soil or any access to
sunlight. The fish will not be harvested or caught, and are kept purely for the purposes
of farming the flowers.
2
Of these five floors, two floors will be used to grow flowers (i.e. it will house the setup
described in the preceding paragraph). Two floors would be used as a production line to
arrange and package the flowers. As there is no guarantee that the flowers grown would
be sufficient to sustain the business, Hugo intends to sign supply contracts with local
farms for particular flowers which could not be grown indoors (such as sunflowers).
Once the packaged products are ready, they will be stored in rooms with special
ventilation facilities to maintain freshness before they could be transported away. The
other floor will be used as laboratory and research facilities for development and testing
purposes, an office for accounting/marketing/conferencing purposes and a reception area
for visitors.
Hugo is not sure whether the above operations are permissible under the terms of the
Government Lease. He would appreciate your legal advice, which he expects will
include legal arguments for and against the setting up of the above operations.
(20 marks)
(c) Unlucky Heights (“the Building”) was built in 1971 and had incorporated in 2010 (the
“IO”). The DMC of the Building is silent as to which parts of the Building are common
parts, and contains the typical covenant refraining owners of individual units from
making any structural alterations and commiting waste. Lok, the chairman of the IO,
recently received a demand letter from Pearl claiming damages against the IO for
personal injuries that she had suffered.
The owner of the sole top floor apartment (“the Penthouse”) and the roof of the Building
is Humphrey. Under the title deeds, the Penthouse was assigned five undivided shares
of the land upon which the Building has been erected whilst the roof was assigned one
undivided share, and Humphrey also acquired the sole and exclusive right to use and
occupy the Penthouse and the roof of the Building.
Less than one year ago, Pearl was walking past the entrance of the Building. Loose debris
fell from the Building and injured Pearl’s head and she had to be hospitalized for her
head injury. She is still in critical condition. The video from the CCTV security camera
in the office building opposite to the Building showed that the debris fell from the parapet
wall (enclosing wall of the flat roof) at the top of the Building. Police investigation has
revealed that the debris matched the wall tiles of the outside of the parapet wall.
The IO seeks your advice on the IO’s liability for the damages claimed by Pearl for the
personal injuries that she suffered due to the fallen debris from the Building. Lok is of
the opinion that the owner of the rooftop should bear full responsibility. Over the last
seven years, the IO and the building manager have received numerous complaints from
residents about illegal structures built on the roof. Humphrey has erected large canopies
on the outside of the parapet walls and built structures on the roof. The said structures
involve structural modifications on the parapet walls, including replacing original
parapet walls with taller but thinner walls made of different materials.
(20 marks)
3
Wolter Whyte Tower (“the Building”) is located near the Sai Ying Pun MTR station. It is built
in the late 1980s. It is 25 storeys high with three units on the 1-25 th floors and two ground floor
shops. The owners have incorporated (“the IO”) in 2012.
The Building is governed by a document titled: The Deed of Mutual Covenant Of Wolter
Whyte Tower (“DMC”). The DMC is one document which contains seven schedules. Covenant
2(a) gives each owner the exclusive use and occupation of his part of the Building. The
Building has been managed by Pink Management Ltd since 2019 (“the Manager”). Covenant
9(b) of Schedule 3 of the DMC requires owners to not cause nuisance, annoyance or
inconvenience to other owners. Schedule 7 of the DMC is titled “House Rules”, and a rule 24(d)
in Schedule 7 reads: “No dog may be brought or kept upon any part of the Estate or the
Common Areas of any building therein…”.
Answer the following questions:
(a) Jane is the owner of Flat 4B of the Building . She has already lived in Flat 4B for 4 years
and observed that many of her neighbours are keeping dogs or cats. In 2021, she made
enquiries with the Manager of her plans to keep three small dogs as pets. After numerous
emails and conversations, no answer was given. Throughout 2022, Jane attended dog
shelters and eventually picked three small dogs to be her pets and reside with her in Flat
4B. Last week, Jane received a letter from the Manager asking her to remove her three
small dogs from Flat 4B. Moreover, there is a further complaint that her three small dogs
have been ‘roaming’ the corridors on the 4th Floor, frightening elderly residents and
urinating near the lift lobbies. Jane has admitted to you that there have been such
instances but her dogs were leashed, and she always cleans up after them. Jane seeks
your help and believes that the Manager is acting unfairly because she knows other
residents have kept pet dogs or cats for a number of years already. According to Jane, the
owners of at least two units keep significantly larger dogs such as Afghan Hounds and
German Shepherds. Jane does not want to lose her pets and so, regardless of the cost, she
is prepared to fight her case in court. Advise Jane on not only whether she can keep her
pets but also the possible legal actions she may face and the potential defences she may
have.
(15 marks)
(b) The owner of Flats 13B and 13C, Mr. Gus Fong, has since about 2003 demolished the
partition wall between the two said units and installed a gate in the corridors leading to
the lift lobby. Upon receiving complaints from the Manager, Mr. Fong defended himself
by claiming that since he moved into the said flats in 2003, nobody has lived in Flat 13A,
and in any event the said gate does not interfere with access to Flat 13A, but only to his
own units. Furthermore, according to Mr. Fong, nobody else (particularly other
occupants of the Building) ever visits the 13/F corridors, and a retired security guard has
informed him that the Manager permitted him to use the said part of the corridors. In
respect of the partition wall, Mr. Fong claims that the Building has not collapsed or been
structurally compromised since he removed the partition wall. Advise the Manager or
Gus Fong of potential breaches of the DMC.
(12 marks)
4
(c) Percy has entered into a sale and purchase agreement to purchase Flat 6B of the Building
for HK$7 million and immediately paid HK$0.7 million as deposit. The vendor is Mr.
Victor Lam. The said agreement was executed and registered on 14th November 2022.
Completion is to take place on 14th February 2023.
The land search at the time of the signing of the agreement revealed the following:
- Mortgage executed in 2014 in favour of Hong Kong Bank for a loan of HK$4.5
million (when the Flat was first purchased for HK$7 million) (“the HK Bank
Mortgage”). There is still a sum of HK$1 million outstanding.
- A charging order absolute dated 1st September 2022 in favour of Mr. Vincent Lam
(“Vincent CO”) for a sum of HK$250,000
However, a land search obtained yesterday revealed the following:
- A lis pendens was registered on 1st December 2022 (“the Lis Pendens”). Your firm
has reviewed the writ and it concerns allegations of installing fixtures in the lift lobby
(a common area pursuant to the DMC) on the same floor as the said flat. The remedy
sought is an injunction to rectify the works.
- A charging order in favour of Goodman Loans Ltd was registered on 2 nd December

2022 (“Goodman CO”) for HK$1.5 million.
Percy is very keen on buying the Flat. She believes she has agreed upon an excellent
price, as Victor is facing serious financial difficulty. The market price for Flat 6B in her
view should be substantially higher.
Assuming Percy wants to proceed with completing the sale and purchase of Flat 6B,
advise her on how to proceed with the purchase of the Flat?
(13 marks)
(d) Mrs. Chang is the owner of Flats 1A and 1B of the Building. She purchased the two flats
many decades ago and has long paid off her mortgage. She is a retired elderly lady who
resides in Flat 1B herself but leases out Flat 1A. Since Mrs. Chang lost her husband to a
car accident five years ago, she has failed to pay management fees. Violet, a supervisor
of the Manager, asks for your advice on the steps she can take to recover the management
fees. The management fees in arears amount to around HK$180,000. Mrs. Chang is
childless and is unemployed. She relies on rent that she collects from the tenant in Flat
1A. The rent is believed to be HK$15,000 per month.
(10 marks)
5
Landry Apartments (“the Building”) was built by Loud Assets Ltd (“the Developer”) in
Causeway Bay in 1988.
Slicker Properties Ltd is the building manager (“the Manager”) for the Building and it is wholly
owned by the Developer. While the owners have yet to incorporate, residents have been keen
on making the Building a better place to live in. There is active participation in owners’
meetings.
Other than retaining the three G/F shops, the Developer sold all units in 1989. The three said
G/F shops share a corridor and lift lobby with all the other owners. Despite the fact that the
Deed of Mutual Covenant governing the Building (“the DMC”) designated the external walls
as common parts, the Developer retained an exclusive right to use the external walls to erect
signs and advertisements. Undivided shares of the land upon which the Building now stands
were allocated to all units but none was assigned to the external walls.
(a) Two years ago, two vending machines have been set up in the G/F corridors leading to the
lift lobby. It has been confirmed the two vending machines were set up by the Developer
for its own profits. The Manager has received complaints from many owners, but it has
defended the Developer’s action with the claim that there is still ample room for residents
to pass by the corridor. Able is an owner of two units in the Building and has come to you
for advice on whether he and the other owners have a meritorious claim against the
Developer for the obstruction caused by the installation of the said vending machines.
Advise them. (12 marks)
(b) In 2016 the Developer sold two of its G/F shops in the Building to Mr. Yeung. The
assignment was registered and there was no reference therein to the right to use external
walls for erecting signs and/or advertisements. Later in 2016, the Developer sold its
remaining G/F shop to Ms. Lam. The assignment was registered and there was also no
reference therein to the right to use the external walls.
Explain who owns the rights to erect signs or advertisements on the external wall.
(8 marks)
(c) Over the past two years, under the pandemic, the Manager’s employees have done a poor
job enforcing management fees and pursuing owners of units who have fallen into arrears
of payment of management fees. The land search of Flat 4C reads as follows:
- A Mortgage dated 2nd May 2015 in favour of the Hong Kong Bank for a loan of HK$3
million (“HK Bank Mortgage). It was registered on 3rd May 2015, and discharged on
3rd May 2017.
6
- A Charge for HK$150,000, dated 27th February 2017 in favour of the Manager
(“Manager’s Charge”). This charge was created pursuant to the express covenants in
the DMC. It was first registered on 1st March 2017, and re-registered on 5th May 2022
- A Mortgage in favour of Kowtow Ltd for a loan of HK$6 million dated 1 st May 2017,
and registered on 3rd April 2017 (“Kowtow Mortgage”). HK$2 million was used to
repay the HK Bank Mortgage, and it was discharged. It is believed that about HK$4
million of the Kowtow Mortgage is still outstanding.
- A charging order for HK$600,000 dated 5th June 2017 in favour of the Mr. Brown
(“Brown’s Charge”). It was registered on 5th June 2017, and re-registered on 4th June
2022.
You are asked to advise the Manager on their position in respect of Flat 5B of the Building.
The Manager has heard rumours that the current owner is facing undergoing serious
financial difficulties and other creditors have initiated enforcement proceedings, including
the eventual order of sale of Flat 4C. The most optimistic appraisal for Flat B is currently
HK$4 million. (15 marks)
(d) With years of savings derived from his earnings as a construction worker and plumber,
Charles purchased an old village house from an indigenous village nearby a slope within
Demarcation District 413 (the “Old House”) since 1980. The House was built within a
lot at a sloped terrain known as “Remaining Portion of Section F Lot 5432 of DD 413”
(the “Lot”).
The Lot is governed under the usual terms and covenants provided under a Block
Government Lease including the “Watford Covenant” and Melhado clause.
Being the owner of the Lot, Charles thought that the Old House was too dilapidated and
serious water seepages problems existed during typhoon seasons which gave him too
much trouble in maintaining them. He therefore hired contractors to demolish the Old
House in early 2021 while living in a rented accommodation outside.
Charles was very impressed by the speedy construction of temporary ‘modular’ buildings
since the onset of COVID-19. Upon the advice given by his fellow workers and with a
view to save costs, Charles thought that it would be far cheaper for him to use a container
to build his own “modular” home. The container can be easily transported into the Lot
and become erected/fitted out by Charles himself. This could save him a lot of costs,
which dispenses with the need for him to hire an architect and/or other builders to draw
plans, submit them to the authorities and ‘build’ them by excavating the ground.
Charles plans to buy his own container and transport it to the land, and seeks to fit them
out internally with domestic facilities to become his own residence in January 2023.
Upon hearing of his father’s plans, his daughter, Isabella, seeks your advice on the legal
compliance aspects in carrying out this ‘plan’. Advise Charles and Isabella whether
Charles would be in breach of any obligations of the Government Lease, the relevant
risks of enforcement and the consequences therefrom. (15 marks)
- End of Examination Paper -
7
Date : 28 June 2022

1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Instructions
2. Write your candidate number on the cover of each answer book. Do NOT write your
name anywhere in the answer book.
4. This is a one and a half-hour examination. In addition, there is 15 minutes' reading time.
Do NOT begin writing in the answer book until you are instructed to do so.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
In 1953, Mr Tang purchased a small house (‘the property’) near Yuen Long in the New
Territories in which he lived with his son Dirk. The property included a large garden in
which Mr Tang grew bananas, pomelo and papaya. The adjacent plot (‘the plot’) was
Government land which had not been leased by anyone and which was surrounded by a
fence which had fallen over in many places. The plot was uncultivated with just wild
flowers and trees growing on it. After some years Mr Tang decided that, as the land was
not being put to any use by anyone, he would use the land as an extension to his fruit
garden. In 1958 Mr Tang dug up the wild flowers and began to plant fruits on part of the
plot. 1n 1959 Mr Tang cut down the small trees and began using the whole plot for growing
fruit. In 1960 he repaired the fence and put up a notice saying ‘Private-Trespassers Keep
Out’. Mr Tang died in 1975 and his son Dirk inherited all his assets. Dirk continued to grow
fruit on the plot. In 1980 Dirk sold the property to Norman his neighbour. Norman wanted
to buy the plot as well but Dirk would only lease the plot to Norman for a monthly rent.
Norman used the plot to continue to grow fruit. Norman died in 1984 and Dirk took the
plot back and carried on growing fruit on it. In 1986, Dirk leased the plot to Ding Transport
Ltd to store their containers on the land on an annual renewable tenancy at the monthly
rental of $8,000. This arrangement, with subsequent rental increases, continued until March
2021 when Dirk received an eviction notice from the Lands Department of the Government
of HKSAR (“the Government”) alleging he had no title to the land and giving notice that
the plot was going to be used by the Government for the construction of a much needed
housing development.

(a) On the facts as explained above and ignoring the issues raised in parts (b) and (c) of
this question, advise Dirk whether he will succeed in resisting the Government’s
eviction demands. (30 marks)
(b) The Government has now raised the issue of the effect of the New Territories Leases
(Extension) Ordinance (Cap 150). The Government argues this Ordinance created a
new lease when it came into effect in 1980 and any period of possession must date
from the creation of the new lease. Advise Dirk how such an argument might be
considered by the court. (6 marks)
.
(c) The Government has raised the further issue of the return of the New Territories to
Mainland China in 1997, arguing that this return also provides a break in any
possession period as any interest or title acquired or claimed against the Hong Kong
Colonial Government had come to an end and could not be enforced against the PRC
Government as reversioner of the original New Territories lease. Advise Dirk how to
respond to this argument. (6 marks)
2
(d) How, if at all, would the likelihood of his success in question (a) above be affected if
Dirk had said in cross-examination during the trial that he would have been willing
to pay rent to the Government for use of the plot? (8 marks)
Gold Luck Mansions (‘the building’) is a multi-storey building which was constructed in
Causeway Bay in 2014. It contains fifty-five floors. According to the occupation permit
the first three floors of the building must be used for commercial use and the fourth to fifty-
fifth floors for residential use. The whole of the ground floor is occupied by a supermarket
and three shops and the whole of the first floor is occupied by a firm of accountants. Flat
12D on the twelfth floor is owned by Mr Chin and has been let to Raisha Tsang (‘Raisha’)
on a three-year lease which will expire in 2023.
The deed of mutual covenant for the building provides, inter alia, that:
(i) Every owner must pay the required management fees as provided for in the
deed of mutual covenant.
(ii) No owner may carry out any structural alterations to his or her flat without
the consent of the Buildings Department.
(iii) No owner shall interfere with the common parts of his or her flat or convert
the common parts to his or her own use.
The deed of mutual covenant was executed under seal by the developer of the building and
Michael Ellis who was the first purchaser of a flat in the building to be sold.
(a) Are both Mr Chin and Raisha bound by the covenants (i) not to make structural
alterations and (ii) to pay management fees? (26 marks)
(b) The firm of accountants, which occupies the first floor, intends to move out and
wishes to divide up the first floor (to which 100 undivided shares of the lot upon
which the building now stands have been allocated by the deed of mutual covenant)
into four separate units. The units will then be sold to four different
persons/companies to use for commercial purposes.
Explain to the firm of accountants the legal mechanism and procedure by which such
division should be effected bearing in mind that new common parts will need to be
created. You may ignore any building issues. (12 marks)
(c) Mark is intending to purchase one of the shops on the ground floor. He notes that the
vendor EasiClean Ltd (‘EasiClean’) has breached the deed of mutual covenant by
enclosing part of the common parts at the back of its unit for its own use. Advise
Mark whether he will be responsible for the breach committed by EasiClean.
(12 marks)
3
(a) Patrick decided to immigrate to Tahiti with his family and put his luxury flat in
Kennedy Town up for sale. On 8 April 2022, Adam entered into a binding sale and
purchase agreement to purchase the flat for HK$30 million and paid a deposit of 10%
of the agreed purchase price. On 2 May 2022, the sale and purchase agreement was
registered at the Land Registry. On 21 April 2022, Lucky Bat Lending Ltd (‘Lucky
Bat’) registered a charging order nisi over the flat by way of enforcement of a
judgment that Lucky Bat had obtained against Patrick. Adam seeks your advice as to
what legal consequences the charging order will have if Patrick executes the
assignment in accordance with the sale and purchase agreement. Advise Adam.
(12 marks)
(b) Would your advice differ if the sale and purchase agreement had only been registered
on 27 May 2022? Explain your answer. (3 marks)
(c) In 2010, Ming Logistics Ltd (‘Ming’) inspected a unit in a commercial building in
Tuen Mun which it wished to purchase from its owner. Having entered into a binding
sale and purchase agreement to purchase the unit, Ming obtained a mortgage loan of
HK$6 million from the National Farming Bank (‘Farming Bank’). The purchase was
duly completed and the mortgage was duly registered. In 2017, Anders successfully
sued Ming for HK$4 million and secured a charging order nisi over the unit by way
of execution of the judgment. The charging order was registered within one month.
On 1 June 2022, Ming approached the Commercial Bank to obtain a further loan by
way of second mortgage of HK$1.5 million which Ming intends to use, first, to
discharge Farming Bank’s mortgage (the sum outstanding is HK$1 million) and,
secondly, to provide some extra liquidity for its business. Commercial Bank has come
to you, its solicitor, for advice as to whether, if it lends HK$1.5 million to Ming partly
to discharge Farming Bank’s mortgage, the charging order will take priority over its
mortgage and to what extent. Advise Commercial Bank. (10 marks)
(d) Colin and Marilyn are husband and wife. In 2016, they decided to buy a flat in Sai
Kung for HK$5 million. Marilyn had inherited a large sum of money from her aunt
and provided the whole purchase price. The flat was duly purchased (without the
assistance of a mortgage), duly assigned to Colin, and registered in Colin’s sole name.
Two years later the flat was mortgaged to Turpis Bank to raise funds for Colin’
business. Does Marilyn have any interest in the flat and, if so, will Turpis Bank take
free of that interest? (25 marks)
4

1:15 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
Instructions

1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) Alan owns a flat in Wan Chai. The flat is in a multi-storey building on land that the
Government granted to the developer Gold Fortune Ltd under Conditions of
Exchange dated 1972.
(i) Explain what is meant by Conditions of Exchange distinguishing Conditions
of Exchange from Conditions of Sale. (3 marks)
(ii) Did Gold Fortune Ltd receive a legal or equitable interest under the Conditions
(iii) It is now 2021 and Alan wishes to sell his flat. How can he prove that he holds
the legal interest in his flat? (6 marks)
(iv) Would your answer to (iii) above differ if the Conditions of Exchange had been
dated 1969? (4 marks)
(b) In 1985 a plot of land in Sham Shui Po was granted to Mega Construction Ltd
(‘Mega’) by way of Conditions of Sale. A restrictive term in the Conditions of Sale
provided that no building might be erected on the land with a height exceeding 50
metres. In 1986, Mega constructed a building 55 metres in height on the land and an
occupation permit was issued by the Buildings Department. In 1996, the land and
building were sold to Chelsea Development Ltd (‘Chelsea’) which demolished the
building and constructed a replacement building 60 metres in height. Again, an
occupation permit was issued by the Buildings Department. This month Chelsea
received a notice from the Lands Department informing it that the restrictive term as
to the maximum permitted height in the Conditions of Sale had been breached and
requiring the building to be demolished.
Chelsea seeks your advice as to:
(i) whether it is bound by the restrictive term; and
(ii) whether it has any defence against an action by the Government to require the
demolition of the building.
Advise Chelsea. (20 marks)
(c) Harmony Developers Ltd (‘Harmony’) is considering whether to purchase a vacant
plot of land in Tai Po in the New Territories. The land was originally granted by
Government under a Block Crown lease dated 1906, which contained the usual
covenants. In the Schedule to the Block Crown lease, the land is described as ‘dry
cultivation’. Your client wishes to know:
(i) whether the plot can be used for the construction of a hotel; and
(ii) whether the plot can be used as a dump for old cars.
Advise Harmony on these two issues. (13 marks)
2
(a) Michael is a male indigenous villager of a recognized village in the New Territories
who wishes to build a small house for himself in the village. He does not, however,
own any land in the village.
(i) Advise him (A) what he must do to secure land upon which to build a small
house; and (B) whether any restrictions in respect of the house to be constructed
will be imposed. (10 marks)
(ii) Michael has heard from the village head that he may apply for a certificate of
exemption. Explain to him (A) the purpose of obtaining this certificate; and (B)
whether he has a right to be issued with a certificate of exemption.
(8 marks)
(iii) The small house has now been constructed in accordance with the statutory
requirements and Michael wishes to sell the house to another indigenous
villager. Explain (A) what documents of title he must produce by way of
proving his good title; and (B) explain the purpose of each document which
must be produced to the purchaser. (8 marks)
(b) In November 2018, Timothy agreed to sell his flat in Kennedy Town to Louis for
HK$10 million. When inspecting the flat Louis noted there were two window-type
air-conditioners in the flat and two split-level air conditioners. The split-level air-
conditioners were securely attached to an inside wall with bolts. Completion has just
taken place and Louis has moved in. Louis is very upset to discover that the two
window-type air conditioners and the two split-level air-conditioners have been
removed. On checking the applicable sale and purchase agreement and assignment,
she sees that no mention of air-conditioners was made in either of them. Does she
have any claim to the air-conditioners against Timothy? (14 marks)
(c) In 2018, Ziggurat Developments Ltd (Ziggurat) developed a block of 20 residential

flats on Lot 789. The block is called ‘Healthy Buildings’. In 2019, Yasmine bought
Flat number 1 Healthy Buildings from Ziggurat. The purchase included one equal
undivided 20th share of and in Lot 789 and of and in Healthy Buildings together with
the right to the exclusive use of Flat 1.
Ziggurat and Yasmine then executed a Deed of Mutual Covenant for Healthy
Buildings (‘DMC’). The DMC provides that each owner has the right to the exclusive
use of the flat allotted to their parcel of undivided shares. The DMC was registered
in the Land Registry.
Explain the legal relationship between the owners of the flats in Healthy Buildings.
(10 marks)
3
(a) In early December 2021, Emperor Co Ltd (‘Emperor’) agreed orally to sell its
commercial premises in Kowloon Tong to Liberty Ltd (‘Liberty’). Emperor and
Liberty identified the premises as Floor 8, Good Fortune Building, 88 Prince Edward
Street, Kowloon. The agreed purchase price was HK$55 million with the completion
date fixed at 5th January 2022. They also agreed that Emperor would give vacant
possession at completion and include all the fixtures in the building.
Both parties obtained separate legal representation. There was no preliminary sale
and purchase agreement.
Emperor’s solicitors wrote to Liberty’s solicitors on 14th December as follows:

14 December 2021
Dear Sirs
Re Sale of as Floor 8, Good Fortune Building, 88 Prince Edward Street,
Kowloon
We act for Emperor in the sale of the above premises to your client Liberty. We
confirm that Emperor has agreed to sell the premises to your client for HK$55
million with completion fixed for 5th January 2022.
We are preparing the formal sale and purchase agreement. Please confirm that
you have instructions to act for Liberty and let us know whether your client will
be purchasing with the aid of a mortgage.
Yours faithfully
Chan and Chan Solicitors
Liberty’s solicitor wrote back on 16th December:

16 December 2021
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 8, Good Fortune Building, 88 Prince Edward Street,
Kowloon
Thank you for your letter of 14th December 2021. We confirm that we act for
Liberty in the purchase of the above premises from your client Emperor. We
confirm that Liberty will be purchasing the property with the aid of a mortgage
from the Standard Chartered Bank.
Yours faithfully
Wright and Hassel Solicitors
One week later Wright and Hassel wrote to Chan and Chan saying:
23 December 2021
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 8, Good Fortune Building, 88 Prince Edward Street,
Kowloon
We are writing to inform you that our client, Liberty, has decided not to go ahead
with the purchase of the above property.
Yours faithfully
Wright and Hassel Solicitors
4
You are a solicitor in the employment of Chan and Chan, Solicitors. Advise your
client Emperor whether it can enforce the oral agreement against Liberty.
(32 marks)
(b) Now assume that the above correspondence had been headed ‘Subject to Contract’.
Explain with case authority the meaning and effect of this expression in this context.
Does all correspondence in negotiations have to be headed with this expression to
gain similar effect? (6 marks)
(c) Explain the doctrine of part performance in the context of an agreement for the sale
and purchase of land and provide two examples of acts that are likely to be held by
the court as constituting part performance in this context. (12 marks)
5
Date : 28 June 2021

1:15 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
Instructions

1
Hong Kong Land Law
Question 1 (set out on pages 2 and 3 hereof) (50 marks in total)
Adam owns a flat (“the flat”) on 12th Floor of Hope Mansion (“the Building”), which was
built in 2010 on Inland Lot No 219 (“the Lot”).
The flat has changed hands several times since 2010. Adam bought the flat from its
previous owner by virtue of an Assignment dated 1st April 2016 which provided, amongst
other things, that the flat was sold “subject to and with the benefit of a Deed of Mutual
Covenant (‘DMC’) relating to the Building”.
The DMC was dated 1st October 2010 and the parties thereto were Hope Co Ltd (as the
developer), Amanda Chan (as the purchaser of the first flat of the Building to have been
sold) and Efficient Management Limited (as the Building Manager). The terms of the DMC
include the following:
(i) The Building Manager has the authority to manage the Building and enforce the
provisions of the DMC.
(ii) Each owner shall use the flat of which he has the exclusive use, occupation and
enjoyment for residential purposes only and shall not conduct any trade or business
or profession or calling whatsoever therein.
(iii) No owner shall create any noise which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the other
occupiers of the Building.
(iv) All management and other charges relating to the Building shall be paid by all owners
in proportion to their respective undivided shares of and in the Building and the lot
upon which the Building was erected.
(v) No owner shall keep any pets.
An Owners’ Corporation in respect of the Building has been properly formed under the
Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344).
Adam has rented out the flat to Eve under a written tenancy agreement which provides,
amongst other things, for Eve to pay the management charges in respect of the flat.
Advise the Building Manager about the liability of Adam and/or Eve, if any, upon the
occurrence of the following events:
(a) The management charges in respect of the flat have not been paid since March 2021.
(20 marks)
2
(b) Loud noises have been emanating from the flat as Eve is giving paid dog-training
sessions in the flat everyday.
(10 marks)
(c) Eve, to create more space, will move some large furniture from the flat to the lift
lobby on 12th Floor and leave it there for the duration of her abovementioned dog-
training sessions. The other neighbours’ access to and from the lifts on 12th Floor is
greatly impeded whenever Eve’s large furniture is left in the lift lobby.
(20 marks)
Peter, Paul and Mary studied law at the same university and became very good friends.
In 1980, they bought a house (“the house”) in Sai Kung, free of mortgage, in joint names.
They made equal contributions to the purchase price but their respective interests were not
mentioned in the Assignment that they executed. They told their solicitors at the time that
their intention was for the last one of them to die to own the whole house.
In 1995, Peter made a will and left all his estate to his brother William. Paul and Mary then
followed suit and made their respective wills. Paul left his whole estate in his will to his
brother Romeo and Mary left hers in her will to her sister Juliet.
Mary died suddenly last week of a heart attack. Owing to Mary’s sudden death, Peter and
Paul decided to make plans for their own “shares” in the house. They reached an oral
agreement (“oral agreement”) yesterday to the effect that they would from then on have
separate ownership of the house, that is, either of them could deal with his own separate
share in the house, freely and without reference to the other.
Peter and Paul telephoned their solicitors in Central this morning to make an appointment
to discuss their oral agreement. Unfortunately, they were both killed when the mini-bus
that Peter and Paul had boarded to travel to Central was hit from behind by a speeding
vehicle.
Who, William, Romeo and/or Juliet, is/are now entitled to the ownership of the house? If
you require further information to answer this question, state what it is and the reason(s)
why it is needed.
3
You are working as a solicitor at the law firm of Safe and Sound and Anita is one of its
clients. Anita and Ben are good friends. As Ben wishes to emigrate, Anita has agreed to
buy Ben’s flat (“the flat”) in Wanchai, which he owns free of mortgage. Ben has told Anita
before that his brother, Calvin, occasionally stays overnight with him at the flat.
Anita has just complained to Safe and Sound about the enquiries it made with Ben’s
solicitors regarding Calvin’s occupation at the flat and his possible interest therein. Anita’s
view is that such enquiries are “far too personal and absolutely unnecessary” because,
according to the land search obtained from the Land Registry, Ben, not Calvin, is already
the “registered owner” and Ben should, therefore, be able to sell a good title, both legal and
equitable.
Discuss, with reference to relevant statutory provisions and case authorities, whether you
agree with Anita’s view. How, if at all, will your answer be different if Calvin is Ben’s
father instead of his brother?
4

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions
1. Write your candidate number on the cover of each answer book.

Do NOT write your name in the answer book.
2. Start each answer on a separate page of the answer book.
3. Write your answers only in the answer books provided.
4. This is a one and a half-hours examination.
6. Reading time for this paper is 15 minutes. Do NOT begin writing in your answer
books during this period until you are instructed to do so.
7. This paper consists of 5 pages, including three questions. Candidates are only required
to answer TWO questions out of three. A total of 100 marks may be awarded.
8. Each question is worth 50 marks.
9. The passing mark for this paper is 50 marks.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
Alan has just signed an agreement (“the agreement”) to sell his flat in Tin Hau (“the flat”)
to David. The agreement includes the following terms:
(i) A good title will be sold.

(ii) Vacant possession of the flat will be delivered at completion.
According to the information supplied by David (some of which he gathered from Fred,
Alan’s father), the land search and the title deeds, the following events have taken place in
respect of the flat:
(1) Alan and a former girlfriend, Mary, executed an Assignment in 2010 to purchase the
flat as joint tenants of both the legal and equitable interests therein.
(2) Mary made a will in 2013 and named Gloria, her mother, as the sole executrix and
beneficiary of her estate.
(3) A Charging Order nisi in respect of one of Alan’s unpaid debts was registered against
the flat on 23rd May 2014 and was made absolute on 30th June 2014. On 2nd
November 2015, both charging orders were discharged.
(4) Mary died of cancer in early 2016.
(5) Fred moved into the flat in late 2016.
(6) Alan started dating Lucy in early 2017 and since then, she has been visiting Alan at
the flat and staying overnight occasionally.
(7) Fred showed David round the flat and negotiated the purchase price on behalf of
Alan.
Answer the following questions and give reasons for your answers:
(a) Discuss, with reference to relevant case authorities and statutory provisions, whether
or not any of the abovementioned events (1) to (7) and/or his knowledge thereof may
affect David’s ability to acquire a good title and obtain vacant possession of the flat
at completion.
(40 marks)
(b) How, if at all, would your answer to Question 1(a) above be different if Fred and
Lucy are not Alans’ father and girlfriend respectively but instead they have jointly
rented the flat from Alan under a three-year tenancy agreement (which commenced
two months ago) together with a right to renew the term of the tenancy for one more
year upon expiry of the present term? If you require further information to answer
this question, state what it is and the reason(s) why such information is needed.
(10 marks)
2
(a) In 1996, Ben started farming on a piece of land (“the land”) in the New Territories.
He built a wooden shed soon after in order to store his farming tools and the toys of
his three children, who started using part of the land as their playground. Ben also
built a fence around the land and installed a locked gate at the entrance.
The land is held from the Government of the Hong Kong SAR under a Block
Government Lease dated 2nd June 1904 for a term of 75 years from 1st July 1898 with
a right of renewal for a further term of 24 years less the last 3 days. The title deeds
of the land show that its owner is Owen, who inherited the land in 1995 from his
deceased father. Owen usually resides in England and seldom visits Hong Kong.
Owen has just received an offer from Penny to buy the land. One of her conditions
of offer (“the condition”) is that Owen must deliver vacant possession of the land at
completion. If Owen accepts Penny’s offer, evaluate, with reference to relevant case
authorities and statutory provisions, his chances of success in fulfilling the condition.
(25 marks)
(b) Healthy Centre (“the building”) was erected on Inland Lot No 34 in 2005.
According to the Deed of Mutual Covenant (“the DMC”) relating to the building,
1/360th equal undivided part or share of and in the building and Inland Lot No 34 has
been allocated to each of the office units of the building.
On 18th November 2005, Clean Company Limited (“Clean”) purchased the whole of
the 16th floor of the building, which consists of 3 office units, namely, Units 1 to 3,
to run its business.
Ten years ago, to create more open space and with the consent of both the Building
Authority and the Manager of the building, Clean employed workmen to “demolish”
the whole of Unit 2. After the “demolition” of Unit 2, the staff and customers of Clean
have been using a path (“the path”), which used to be part of the floor of the now
demolished Unit 2, as a shortcut to the lift lobby and the toilets on the 16th floor.
Clean, fearing an economic downturn in Hong Kong, has agreed to sell Unit 3 to
Keen Buyer Limited (“Keen”).
Advise Keen, with reference to relevant case authorities and statutory provisions, the
steps (if any) it should take to ensure that after completion of its purchase of Unit 3,
Keen and its successors in title will have an express right to use the path. If no such
express right is procured from Clean at completion, will Keen, as the new owner of
Unit 3, and its successors in title still be entitled to use the path? If so, what is the
legal term used to describe such a right of way?
(25 marks)
3
Jack owns two flats (respectively “Flat 1” and “Flat 2”) at Hope Garden (“the Building”)
constructed on Marine Inland Lot No 298 (“the Lot”). The Building was first built in 1993
and the flats have changed hands several times since.
When Jack bought both Flat 1 and Flat 2 from Mona, their previous owner, he executed an
Assignment dated 4th September 2000, which expressly stated, amongst other things, that
it was “‘subject to and with the benefit of a Deed of Mutual Covenant (“DMC”) relating to
the Building”.
The DMC was dated 2nd March 1993 and the parties thereto were Hope Co Ltd (as the
developer), Nancy Chan (as the purchaser of the first flat of the Building to have been sold)
and Diligence Management Limited (as the Building Manager). The terms of the DMC
include the following:
(i) The Building Manager is empowered to manage the Building and enforce the
provisions of the DMC.
(ii) All management and other charges relating to the Building shall be paid by all
owners in proportion to their respective undivided shares of and in the Building and
the lot upon which the Building was erected.
(iii) No owner shall make any structural alteration to the flat of which he has the
exclusive, use and occupation.
(iv) No owner shall keep any pets.
(v) No owner shall use the flat of which he has the exclusive use, occupation and
enjoyment for any purpose other than as a private residence and shall not conduct
any trade or business or profession or calling whatsoever therein.
(vi) No owner shall create any noise which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the other
occupiers of the Building.
Jack and his family reside at Flat 1. Flat 2 has been rented out to Terry at a monthly rent of
HK20,000 under a written tenancy agreement, which also provides for Terry to pay the
management charges for Flat 2.
An Owners’ Corporation in respect of the Building has been properly formed under the
Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344).
Answer the following questions. You must give reasons for your answers.
(a) Jack and his family have been kept awake lately because the dog of Danny, one of
their neighbours, keeps barking every night. When confronted by the Building
Manager, Danny argues that he is not bound by any provisions of the DMC because
he is not a party to it. Furthermore, the management charges for Flat 2 have not been
paid for the past three months. Explain whether or not the Building Manager is
entitled to enforce the DMC against Danny for the noise made by his dog and demand
from both Jack and Terry payment of the outstanding management charges for Flat
2.
(25 marks)
4
(b) Jack recently told Jill, his other neighbour, his plans (“the plans”) to remove the
partition wall between Flat 1 and Flat 2 upon the expiry of Terry’s tenancy and use
one of the rooms in Flat 2 as a “health studio” for Jack’s daughter to give yoga
classes now and again. When Danny heard about the plans, he immediately sent a
complaint to the Building Manager. Advise the Building Manager of the
circumstances in which the plans may breach any statutorily implied or
abovementioned express provisions of the DMC.
(25 marks)
5
Date : 16 June 2020

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions


1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) In April 2020, Jerome agreed to sell his flat in Chai Wan to Alicia for $12 million.
When inspecting the flat, Alicia noted that there were two window-type air-
conditioners and one split-level air conditioner in the flat. The split-level air-
conditioner was securely attached to an inside wall with bolts. Completion has just
taken place. To her dismay, Alicia discovered that all the air conditioners have been
removed. Neither the sale and purchase agreement nor the assignment refers to any
of these air-conditioners. Advise Alicia?
(18 marks)
(b) Fred has entered into a sale and purchase agreement to purchase a newly constructed
flat in Kowloon from the developer. The ultimate root of title is an Agreement for
Conditions of Sale dated in 2011 (the ‘Conditions of Sale’). Fred has been informed
that he will only be acquiring an equitable interest in the flat.
(i) Explain why Fred will only be acquiring an equitable interest. Would your
answer differ if the Conditions of Sale had been dated in 1968?
(4 marks)
(ii) When will the equitable interest be converted into a legal estate? How should
this be proved? Does any document need to be registered?
(8 marks)
(iii) Assume that the ultimate root of title was an Agreement for Conditions of
Exchange rather than the Conditions of Sale. Explain the difference between
Conditions of Exchange and Conditions of Sale.
(4 marks)
(c) Forward Development Ltd (‘Forward Development’) has just purchased a plot of
land from the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
(‘HKSAR’) for development.
(i) The grant of this plot of land contains a covenant (‘the covenant’) that requires
the land to be used ‘only for industrial purposes’. Advise Forward
Development whether it may use any building constructed on the land partly
for printing magazines and partly for advertising those magazines.
(12 marks)
(ii) What remedy or remedies, if any, would be available to the Government of

HKSAR if the court ruled that there had been a breach of the covenant?
(4 marks)
2
(a) In March 2020, Harry Hsu (‘Harry’) and Tony Tong (‘Tony’) negotiated the terms on
which Harry would grant Tony a lease of Harry’s flat known as Flat 16A Bauhinia
Court, Hong Kong (the ‘Flat’). Eventually they agreed to enter into a lease starting
on 1 May 2020 for a term of four years at a monthly rent of HK$85,000.00. In April,
Harry’s solicitor sent the following letter to Tony.
Dear Mr. Tong

We act for Harry Hsu, who has agreed to let Flat 16A Bauhinia Court
to you for a term of four years starting on 1 May 2020 at a monthly rent
of HK$85,000. We will shortly send you the lease for signature.
Harry’s solicitor signed the letter. However, no agreement for lease or lease was ever
signed and Harry has now refused to let the Flat to Tony.
(i) Explain whether Tony can enforce the oral agreement for lease against Harry?
(20 marks)
(ii) Assume that both Harry and Tony executed the lease under seal on 1 May 2020.
The lease is not registered in the Land Registry and on 15 June 2020 Harry
mortgaged the Flat by way of legal charge to the Nanyang Commercial Bank
Ltd (‘NCB’) to secure a loan of HK$8 million. NCB knew about Tony’s lease
when it took the legal charge. NCB then registered the legal charge on 20 June
2020. Explain who has priority, Tony or NCB.
(10 marks)
(b) Alan wants to create a trust over his flat known as Flat 7, Pine Court, Hong Kong
(the ‘Flat’), in favour of his children and to appoint his friends, Beatrice and Carrie,
to be the trustees of the trust. Alan holds the Flat under a Government Lease.
(i) What are the formalities required for creating the trust and appointing the
trustees?
(8 marks)
(ii) Will Beatrice and Carrie hold the Flat as joint tenants or tenants in common?
(4 marks)
(c) In 2006, Flat 17B Serena Mansion, Hong Kong (the ‘Flat’) was assigned to Mr. and
Mrs. Tam as joint tenants. Mr. Tam wishes now to give his interest in the Flat under
his will to his son. Can this be done? If so, how and why?
(8 marks)
3
In 2017, Predominant Limited (‘Predominant’) constructed a 30-storey block of 240

residential flats on Tuen Mun Town Lot No. 1234. The block is called ‘Predominant
Gardens’. Whilst Predominant Gardens was being constructed, Jenny bought from
Predominant one equal undivided 240th part or share of and in Tuen Mun Town Lot No.
1234 and Predominant Gardens together with the right to the exclusive use and occupation
of Flat A on the 10th Floor (the ‘Flat’).
Predominant and Jenny then executed a Deed of Mutual Covenant for Predominant
Gardens (the ‘DMC’). Amongst other terms the DMC contains the following covenants by
all owners of undivided shares in the lot (the ‘DMC covenants’) that:
• they will not allow their flats or other areas of which they have exclusive use to
fall into disrepair;
• they will not obstruct the common parts of Predominant Gardens; and
• they will not employ any contractor other than Predominant Design Ltd (a company
wholly-owned by Predominant) to carry out any repairs, maintenance,
improvements or decorations to their flats or other areas of which they have
exclusive use.
The DMC also provides that each owner has the right to the exclusive use of the flat allotted
to his undivided shares under the DMC. The DMC was registered in the Land Registry.
Predominant thereafter sold the remaining 239 flats to individual purchasers who each
bought one equal undivided 240th part or share of and in Tuen Mun Town Lot No. 1234
and Predominant Gardens together with the right to the exclusive use and occupation of a
particular flat.
Jenny sold the Flat to Benny last month. Answer the following questions, giving reasons
for your answers:
(a) Can the DMC covenants be enforced against Benny?

(25 marks)
(b) If Benny grants a lease of the Flat to Tommy, can the DMC covenants be enforced
against Tommy?
(13 marks)
(c) Can Predominant enforce the DMC covenants against any of the flat owners?
(12 marks)
4

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions


1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) Four years ago, Victor purchased a flat in a multi-storey building in Ho Man Tin Street,
Kowloon (‘the flat’), assisted by a mortgage from the HSBC. He then moved in with
his wife, Rebecca. Victor is at all times the registered owner of the flat. The mortgage
has also been registered at the Land Registry. In June 2019, their relationship became
bitter. Rebecca has in fact paid the full deposit for the flat and all the mortgage
repayments to date while Victor has contributed nothing.
Explain the respective interests of Victor, Rebecca and the HSBC in the flat or in the
proceeds if the flat is being sold at a price (after deducting all costs and expenses)
higher than the outstanding indebtedness of the mortgage. (15 marks)
(b) Pancy, a professional musician specialising in playing and teaching the xylophone, is
considering buying the flat. The multi-storey building was constructed in 1970 on the
land which was first granted to Diego Construction Ltd (‘Diego’) under Conditions of
Sale dated 1968 (‘the Conditions of Sale’). No certificate of compliance has been
issued and registered. The building is also governed by a Deed of Mutual Covenant
dated 1970 executed between Diego and a Mr. James Tin. The Deed of Mutual
Covenant stipulates that the use of the flat is residential.
Explain whether Pancy can use one of the rooms in the flat for giving xylophone
lessons to her pupils who pay for such lessons. If you need further information to
answer this question, identify such information. (30 marks)
(c) Explain the nature of interest held under the Conditions of Sale. (5 marks)
(a) “The system produced by the LRO (Lands Registration Ordinance) is that of
registration of deeds, under which registration has no effect on the creation of interests
in land. Registration does not produce title; instead, it gives priority to those interests
which can be registered, it acts as a record of transactions, and it acts as a notice to
those dealing with land…” (Sihombing and Wilkinson, A Guide to Hong Kong
Conveyancing).
Explain to what extent you agree with this quotation, with illustration by way of two
examples. (12 marks)
(b) Peter, a businessman who operates a logistics company called Ponderland Ltd., is
planning to expand Ponderland’s business and buy open land in the northern New
2
Territories as a depot for additional delivery vans that Ponderland expects to acquire
late next year. Alan, an estate agent, has introduced to Peter some land near Sha Tau
Kok owned by Venturous Ltd (‘Venturous’). The asking price proposed by Venturous
is acceptable to Peter and the land appears to be suitable except that it is currently
occupied by Tyson, a tenant. Tyson uses the land for storage of used cars.
Alan informed Peter that, according to Venturous, the tenancy agreement between
Venturous and Tyson was made orally and was for two years expiring on 30 June 2020.
However, when Peter visited the land to inspect it last week, Tyson told Peter that the
oral tenancy was for three years expiring on 30 June 2021 and that when granting him
the tenancy, Venturous had promised in a letter that Tyson could have a further five
years if he wished to do so. A land search, however, does not reveal any record of
Tyson’s interest as claimed.
Explain whether Ponderland will not be able to take possession of the land for six years
after 30 June 2020 (being the one remaining year of tenancy claimed by Tyson plus
the 5-year optional further term which Tyson said was granted by Venturous).
(20 marks)
(c) On the other hand, the land search register shows an Assignment of Rental Income
received by Venturous in respect of leasing out the land in favour of a finance company
called Easy Credit Ltd. for the due repayment of a loan in the sum of HK$1 million.
The Assignment of Rental Income is dated 1 October 2018 and was registered on 29
October 2018. Furthermore, the register also shows two charging orders (both nisi and
absolute). One is in favour of the Bank of East Asia for a judgement debt of HK$1.2
million owed by Venturous; this charging order was registered in December 2014. The
other is in favour of the HSBC for a judgment debt of HK$ 1.5 million owed by
Venturous; this charging order was registered in November 2019.
Explain whether Ponderland will be able to purchase the land free from any of those
interests. (18 marks)
(a) Teddy and his wife, who have recently returned to Hong Kong from New Zealand,
would prefer to live in their own house with a garden and an open view. Last weekend
they were introduced to some houses at a village in Sai Kung by an estate agent. They
particularly like one house there, construction of which was almost completed. The
agent told them that the house was being built by a developer on land owned by a man
from the village who is now living in Malaysia. The house is 27 feet tall, has three
storeys (each 700 square feet in area), a flat roof and small balconies. The agent said
that anyone who purchased the house could use the flat land next to the house as a
garden and the land between the house and the road for car parking. According to the
agent, the purchaser could also add an extension to the house on the ground floor,
make extra rooms on the roof and increase the size of the balconies. The agent also
told them that to purchase the house, they would have to make a large down-payment
3
and then wait for several months whilst necessary formalities were carried out before
a sale and purchase agreement would be signed.
Advise on all the matters arising from the facts given above. (20 marks)
(b) In 1988 Prosperous Development Ltd (‘Prosperous’) purchased a plot of undeveloped

land in the New Territories (‘the land’) from the Government. Prosperous was awaiting
the construction of a new road adjacent to the land before it would proceed with the
construction of a low-rise housing development on the land. The new road remained
at the planning stage, however, and Prosperous postponed its development project. In
1990 Mr. Tung Fai, a villager who owned adjacent land, started to plant flowers for
sale in Lunar New Year on a small part of the land. By 1992, since no one came
forward to object, he had covered the whole of the land with planted flowers. In 1995
he leased out the land to Organic Farming Co Ltd (‘Organic’) for 5 years and Organic
continued to grow flowers there for sale in their outlet in Kowloon. After the expiry of
the 5-year lease in 2000 Mr. Tung Fai continued to grow his own flowers on the land
until his death in 2008. His son Fred immediately took over the flower growing
business on the land and in November 2010, he erected a fence around the land. In
January 2019, Prosperous wrote to Fred saying that he had to leave the land
immediately as the Government had then approved plans for the construction of the
road and Prosperous intended to commence the construction of their low-rise housing
development on the land immediately. Having received no response from Fred,
Prosperous commenced legal action in June 2019 to recover the land.
Explain who has a valid claim to the land. (30 marks)
4
Date : 19 June 2019

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

7. This paper consists of 4 pages, including three questions. Candidates are only
required to answer TWO questions out of three. A total of 100 marks may be
awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) Alan Au (‘Alan’) purchased flat 3D Zeon House Buildings (the ‘Flat’) in February
2015. In August 2018, Alan and Bella Bates (‘Bella’) were negotiating the terms of a
lease of the Flat for Bella’s occupation. Eventually they agreed orally to enter into a
lease of the Flat starting on 1 September 2018 for a term of four years at a monthly
rent of HK$50,000.00 payable monthly in advance. They also agreed that the lease
would include a dish washer, an electric stove and all split-level air-conditioners
currently in the Flat.
Alan then wrote to Bella as follows:
“Dear Miss Bates,
Earlier today we agreed that you would take a lease of my flat in Zeon House
Buildings for a term of four years starting on 1 September 2018 at a monthly
rent of HK$50,000 payable monthly in advance. My solicitors are preparing
the draft lease which will shortly be sent to you. “
Alan signed the letter.
The following day, Alan wrote to Bella again as follows:
“Dear Miss Bates,
I omitted to mention in my letter of yesterday that we had agreed you would
have the benefit of the use of the air-conditioners which are fitted in the flat.”
Alan signed the letter.
In late August, however, Alan wrote to Bella again saying that he had changed his
mind and had decided not to let to her.
(i) Can Bella enforce the oral agreement for lease against Alan? (20 marks)
(ii) If Alan had not signed the letters sent to Bella but instead had instructed his
solicitors to send these letters containing the same information, would your
answer differ? (6 marks)
(iii) Assuming the lease between Alan and Bella was for three years, what are the
legal formalities required for creating the lease? (6 marks)
(b) Assume that the lease is for four years and both Alan and Bella execute the lease
under seal. The lease is dated 10 September 2018.
(i) Bella did not register the lease in the Land Registry. On 14 September 2018
Alan mortgaged the Flat by way of legal mortgage to the Colonial Cash Bank
2
Ltd (‘Colonial Cash’) to secure a loan of HK$1 million. Colonial Cash knew
about Bella’s lease when the mortgage was created. Colonial Cash registered
its mortgage on 5 October 2018. Who has priority, Bella or Colonial Cash?
(12 marks)
(ii) Assume Alan and Bella had never executed the lease under seal but instead
Alan had orally agreed on 10 September 2018, to lease the Flat to Bella for a
term of two years starting immediately at a monthly rent of HK$50,000 and
Bella had moved into the Flat the same day. They do not sign a lease. Can
Bella enforce the lease against Alan and Colonial Cash? (6 marks)
In 1950 Mr Dong purchased a small house (‘the property’) near Tai Po in the New
Territories in which he lived with his son Eric. The property included a large garden in
which Mr Dong grew vegetables. The adjacent plot (‘the plot’) was Government land
which had not been leased by anyone and which was surrounded by an old broken-down
fence. The plot was uncultivated with just wild flowers and trees growing on it. After
some years Mr Dong decided that as the land was not being put to any use by anyone he
would use the land as an extension to his vegetable garden. In 1955 Mr Dong dug up the
wild flowers and began to plant vegetables on part of the plot. In 1956 Mr Dong cut down
the small trees and began using the whole plot for growing vegetables. In 1957 he
repaired the fence and put up a notice saying ‘Trespassers Keep Out’. Mr Dong sold the
vegetables from the plot in the market in Tai Po. Mr Dong died in 1970 and his son Eric
inherited all his assets. Eric continued to grow vegetables on the plot. In 1975 Eric sold
the property to Fred, his neighbour. Fred wanted to buy the plot as well but Eric would
only lease the plot to Fred. Fred continued to grow vegetables on the plot. Fred paid a
monthly rent to Eric. Fred died in 1979 and Eric took the plot back and carried on
growing vegetables on it. In 1985, following the judgment of the Full Court in Attorney
General v Melhado Investments Ltd [1983] HKLR 327, Eric leased the plot to Happy
Logistics Co Ltd to store their containers on the land on an annual renewable tenancy at
the monthly rental of $6,000. This arrangement, with subsequent rental increases,
continued until March 2019 when Eric received an eviction notice from the Lands
Department of Government alleging he had no title to the land and giving notice that the
plot was going to be used by the Government for the construction of a much needed
this question, advise Eric whether he has acquired a title by adverse possession to the
plot and can, accordingly, resist the Government’s eviction demands. (26 marks)
(Extension) Ordinance (Cap 150). The Government argues that this Ordinance
created a new lease when it came into effect in 1980 and any period of possession
must date from the creation of the new lease. Advise Eric how such an argument
might be considered by the court. (8 marks)
3
Government as reversioner of the original New Territories lease. Advise Eric how to
respond to this argument. (8 marks)
(d) What would the effect be on the likelihood of his success in arguing that he had
obtained a title to the plot by way of adverse possession if Eric had said in cross-
examination during the trial that, if asked, he would have been willing to pay rent to
the Government for use of the plot? (8 marks)
(a) In 2013, three friends Jackie, Keith and Lionel, bought a flat (the ‘Flat’) for
HK$12,000,000. It was assigned to them as legal and beneficial joint tenants.
Advise on the following matters.
(i) Last month, Jackie died leaving her entire estate by will to her husband,
Michael. Explain who inherits Jackie’s interest in the Flat? (10 marks)
(ii) Now Lionel wishes to sever his interest in the flat. Advise him of the action he
must take. (10 marks)
(iii) Assume Lionel did not sever his interest in the flat. Last week Keith and Lionel
died in the same road traffic accident. Who can assign the legal estate in the
Flat? (8 marks)
(iv) If the assignment in 2013 had stayed silent as to the nature of the ownership of
the Flat, explain the interests in the Flat would have been affected. (10 marks)
(b) In 2015, Nightingale Developments Ltd (“Nightingale”) developed a block of 30
residential flats on Lot 789. The block is called ‘Oceana Building’ (‘Oceana’). In
2016, Michael bought Flat 1 Oceana from Nightingale. The purchase included one
equal undivided 30th share of and in Lot 789 and of and in Oceana together with the
right to the exclusive use of Flat 1.
Nightingale and Michael then executed a Deed of Mutual Covenant for Oceana
(‘DMC’). The DMC provides that each owner has the right to the exclusive use of
the flat allotted to their one undivided share. The DMC was registered in the Land
Registry.
Explain the legal relationship between the owners of the flats in Oceana. (12 marks)
4

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) Victor, who owns a luxury flat in Taitam Towers, decided to emigrate to Canada
with his family and put his flat up for sale. On 15 October 2018 Peter entered into a
binding sale and purchase agreement to purchase the flat for $20 million and paid a
deposit of 10% of the agreed purchase price. The sale and purchase agreement was
registered on 1 November 2018. On 25 October 2018 Macau Gambling Holdings
Ltd (‘Macau’) registered a charging order nisi over the flat by way of enforcement
of a judgment which Macau had obtained against Victor. Peter seeks your advice as
to what legal consequences the charging order will have if Victor executes the
assignment in accordance with the sale and purchase agreement. Advise Peter.
(15 marks)
(b) Would your advice differ if the sale and purchase agreement had only been
registered on 20 November 2018? Explain your answer. (5 marks)
(c) In 2006 Portable Cabins Ltd (‘Portable’) inspected a unit in a commercial building
in Tuen Mun which it wished to purchase from its owner. Having entered into a
binding sale and purchase agreement to purchase the unit, Portable obtained a
mortgage loan of $6 million from the Bank of North America (‘America Bank’).
The purchase was duly completed and the mortgage was duly registered. In 2017
Frank successfully sued Portable for $4 million and secured a charging order nisi
over the unit by way of execution of the judgment. The charging order was
registered within one month. In December 2018 Portable approached the Bank of
Brunei (‘Brunei Bank’) to obtain a further loan by way of second mortgage of $1.5
million which Portable intends to use, first, to discharge America Bank’s mortgage
(the sum outstanding is $1 million) and, secondly, to provide some extra liquidity
for its business. Brunei Bank has come to you, its solicitor, for advice as to whether,
if it lends $1.5 million to Portable partly to discharge America Bank’s mortgage, the
charging order will take priority over its mortgage and to what extent. Advise
Brunei Bank. (15 marks)
(d) James and Matilda are husband and wife. In 2016 they decided to buy a flat in
North Point and Matilda (who had inherited a large sum of money from her aunt)
provided the whole purchase price of $5 million. The flat was duly purchased
(without the assistance of a mortgage) and duly assigned to James and registered in
James’ sole name. Two years later the flat was mortgaged to Mega Bank to raise
funds for James’ business. Does Matilda have any interest in the flat and, if so, will
Mega Bank take free of that interest? (15 marks)
2
Fancy Mansions (‘the property’) is a multi-storey building which was constructed in

Kennedy Town in 2014. It is close to the MTR station and convenient for shopping. It
contains thirty five floors. According to the occupation permit the first three floors of the
building must be used for commercial use and the fourth to thirty fifth floors for
residential use. The whole of the ground floor is occupied by a supermarket and three
shops and the whole of the first floor is occupied by a firm of accountants. Flat 12D on
the twelfth floor is owned by Mr Lam and has been let to Trudi Tsui (‘Trudi’) on a three-
year lease which will expire in 2020.
The deed of mutual covenant for the property provides, inter alia, that:
(i) No owner may carry out any structural alterations to his or her flat without the
consent of the Manager of the building.
(ii) Every owner must pay the required management fees as provided for in the deed of
mutual covenant.
(iii) No owner shall interfere with the common parts of his or her flat or convert the
common parts to his or her own use.
The deed of mutual covenant was executed under seal by the developer and Patrick Pang
who was the first purchaser of a flat in the building to be sold.
(a) Are both Mr Lam and Trudi bound by the covenants (i) not to carry out any
structural alterations; and (ii) to pay management fees? (20 marks)
(b) The firm of accountants intends to move out and wishes to divide up the first floor
(to which 100 shares have been allocated) into four separate units. The units will
then be sold to four different persons/companies to use for commercial purposes.
Explain to the firm of accountants the legal mechanism by which such division
should be effected bearing in mind that new common parts will need to be created.
You may ignore any building issues. (10 marks)
(c) Percy is intending to purchase one of the shops on the ground floor. He notes that
the vendor Vesuvius Volcano Ltd (‘Vesuvius’) has breached the deed of mutual
covenant by enclosing part of the common parts at the back of its unit for its own
use. Advise Percy whether he will be responsible for the breach committed by
Vesuvius. (12 marks)
(d) A and B own adjacent flats in Pine Mansion. B went to live in Bermuda in 1995
and his flat was left vacant. B died in 1998 leaving no relatives. A moved into B’s
flat without any permission in 1999 and has been occupying the flat ever since. Has
A obtained title by adverse possession to B’s flat? (8 marks)
3
(a) Danny is a male indigenous villager of a recognized village in the New Territories
who wishes to build a small house for himself in the village. He does not, however,
own any land in the village.
(i) Advise him (A) what he must do to secure land upon which to build a small
house; and (B) whether any restrictions in respect of the house to be
constructed will be imposed. (10 marks)
(ii) Danny has heard from the village head that he may apply for a certificate of
exemption. Explain to him (A) the purpose of obtaining this certificate; and
(B) whether he has a right to be issued with a certificate of exemption.
(8 marks)
(iii) The small house has now been constructed in accordance with the statutory
requirements and Danny wishes to sell the house to another indigenous
villager. Explain (A) what documents of title he must produce by way of
proving his good title; and (B) explain the purpose of each document which
must be produced to the purchaser. (8 marks)
(b) In November 2018 Steven agreed to sell his flat in Wanchai to Pearl for $10
million. When inspecting the flat Pearl noted that there were two window-type air-
conditioners in the flat and two split-level air conditioners. The split-level air-
conditioners were securely attached to an inside wall with bolts. Completion has
just taken place and Pearl has moved in. To her dismay she has discovered that the
two window-type air conditioners and the split-level air-conditioners have been
removed. On perusing the applicable sale and purchase agreement and assignment
she sees that no mention of air-conditioners was made in either of them. Does she
have any claim to the air-conditioners against Steven? (10 marks)
(c) Paul has just entered into a sale and purchase agreement to purchase a newly
constructed flat in Chai Wan from the developer. The developer’s solicitor sends
Paul the documents of title and Paul notes that the ultimate root of title is
Conditions of Sale dated 2018. The developer’s solicitor explains to Paul that he
will only be receiving the equitable interest in the flat.
(i) Explain why, as a matter of law, Paul will only be receiving the equitable
interest in the flat. (4 marks)
(ii) As a matter of law, when will the equitable interest be converted into a legal
estate? How can this best be proved? Does any document need to be
registered? (10 marks)
4
Date : 21 June 2018

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) In early May 2018 Easiphone Mobile Communications Co Ltd (‘Easiphone’) agreed
orally to sell its commercial premises in Shatin to Biba Boutique Fashions Ltd
(‘Biba’). Easiphone and Biba identified the premises as Floor 5, Lucky Building, 53
Tai Wai Street, Shatin. The agreed purchase price was HK$35 million with the
completion date fixed at 8th June 2018. They also agreed that Easiphone would give
vacant possession at completion and include all the fixtures in the premises.
Easiphone’s solicitors wrote to Biba’s solicitors on 14th May stating:
14 May 2018
Dear Sirs
Re Sale of Floor 5, Lucky Building, 53 Tai Wai Street, Shatin
We act for Easiphone in the sale of the above premises to your client Biba. We
confirm that Easiphone has agreed to sell the premises to your client for HK$35
million with completion fixed for 8th June 2018.
We are preparing the formal sale and purchase agreement. Please confirm that you
have instructions to act for Biba and let us know whether your client will be
purchasing with the aid of a mortgage.
Yours faithfully
Lee and Lee Solicitors
Biba’s solicitor wrote back on 16th May:

16 May 2018
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 5, Lucky Building, 53 Tai Wai Street, Shatin
Thank you for your letter of 14th May 2018. We confirm that we act for Biba in the
purchase of the above premises from your client Easiphone. We confirm that Biba
will be purchasing the property with the aid of a mortgage from the Standard
Chartered Bank.
Yours faithfully
Man and Fook Solicitors
2
One week later Man and Fook wrote to Lee and Lee saying:
23 May 2018
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 5, Lucky Building, Shatin
We are writing to inform you that our client, Biba, has decided not to go ahead with
the purchase of the above property.
Yours faithfully
Man and Fook Solicitors
You are a solicitor in the employment of Lee and Lee, Solicitors. Advise your client
Easiphone whether it can enforce the oral agreement against Biba. (32 marks)
Does all subsequent correspondence in written negotiations commenced with a letter
so headed have to be headed with this expression to gain similar effect? (6 marks)
and purchase of land and provide two examples of acts which are likely to be held by

(a) Chen owns a flat in Kennedy Town. The flat is in a multi-storey building on land
which was granted by the Government to the developer Happy Dragon Ltd under
Conditions of Exchange dated 1976.
(i) Explain what is meant by Conditions of Exchange distinguishing Conditions of
Exchange from Conditions of Sale. (3 marks)
(ii) Did Happy Dragon Ltd receive a legal or equitable interest under the Conditions
(iii) It is now 2018 and Chen wishes to sell his flat. How can he prove that he holds
the legal interest in his flat? (6 marks)
(iv) Would your answer to (iii) above differ if the Conditions of Exchange had been
dated 1969? (4 marks)
(b) In 1985 a plot of land in Kowloon Bay was granted to Carlton Construction Ltd
(‘Carlton’) by way of Conditions of Sale. A restrictive term in the Conditions of Sale
metres. In 1986 Carlton constructed a building 55 metres in height on the land and an
occupation permit was issued by the Buildings Department. In 1996 the land and
3
building were sold to Ritz Development Ltd (‘Ritz’) which demolished the building
and constructed a replacement building 60 metres in height. Again, an occupation
permit was issued by the Buildings Department. This month Ritz received a notice
from the Lands Department informing it that the restrictive term as to the maximum
permitted height in the Conditions of Sale had been breached and therefore requiring
the building to be demolished.
Ritz seeks your advice as to:
(i) whether it is bound by the restrictive term; and (10 marks)
(ii) whether it has any defence against an action by the Government to require the
demolition of the building. (10 marks)
Advise Ritz.
(c) Chelsea Developers Ltd (‘Chelsea’) is considering whether to purchase a vacant plot
of land in Sheung Shui in the New Territories. The land was originally granted by
Government under a Block Crown lease dated 1906 which contained the usual
covenants. In the Schedule to the Block Crown lease the land is described as ‘dry
(i) whether the plot can be used for the construction of a hotel; and (6 marks)
(ii) whether the plot can be used as a dump for old cars. (7 marks)
Advise Chelsea on these two issues.

In 1949 Mr Leung purchased a small house (‘the property’) near Sai Kung in the New
Territories in which he lived with his son Gerald. The property included a large garden in
which Mr Leung grew vegetables. The adjacent plot (‘the plot’) was Government land
which had not been leased by anyone and which was surrounded by an old broken-down
fence. The plot was uncultivated with just wild flowers and trees growing on it. After
some years Mr Leung decided that as the land was not being put to any use by anyone he
would use the land as an extension to his vegetable garden. In 1954 Mr Leung dug up the
wild flowers and began to plant vegetables on part of the plot. In 1955 Mr Leung cut
down the small trees and began using the whole plot for growing vegetables. In 1956 he
repaired the fence and put up a notice saying ‘Trespassers Keep Out’. Mr Leung sold the
vegetables from the plot in the market in Sai Kung. Mr Leung died in 1970 and his son
Gerald inherited all his assets. Gerald continued to grow vegetables on the plot. In 1975
Gerald sold the property to Bill his neighbour. Bill wanted to buy the plot as well but
Gerald would only lease the plot to Bill. Bill continued to grow vegetables on the plot.
Bill paid a monthly rent to Gerald. Bill died in 1979 and Gerald took the plot back and
carried on growing vegetables on it. In 1985, following the judgment of the Full Court in
Attorney General v Melhado Investments Ltd [1983] HKLR 327, Gerald leased the plot to
LogiTech Co Ltd to store their containers on the land on an annual renewable tenancy at
the monthly rental of $6,000. This arrangement, with subsequent rental increases,
4
continued until March 2018 when Gerald received an eviction notice from the Lands
Department of Government alleging he had no title to the land and giving notice that the
plot was going to be used by the Government for the construction of a much needed
this question, advise Gerald whether he has acquired a title by adverse possession to
the plot and can, accordingly, resist the Government’s eviction demands.
(26 marks)
(Extension) Ordinance (Cap 150). The Government argues this Ordinance created a
new lease when it came into effect in 1980 and any period of possession must date
from the creation of the new lease. Advise Gerald how such an argument might be
considered by the court. (8 marks)
Government as reversioner of the original New Territories lease. Advise Gerald how
to respond to this argument. (8 marks)
(d) What would the effect be on the likelihood of his success in arguing that he had
obtained a title to the plot by way of adverse possession if Gerald had said in cross-
examination during the trial that, if asked, he would have been willing to pay rent to
the Government for use of the plot? (8 marks)
5

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
(a) In 2011, three friends Gloria, Ricky and Tim, bought a flat (the ‘Flat’) for
HK$12,000,000. It was assigned to them as legal and beneficial joint tenants
Advise on the following matters.
(i) Last month, Gloria died leaving her entire estate by will to her husband, Jack.
Explain who owns Gloria’s interest in the Flat? (10 marks)
(ii) Now Tim wishes to sever his interest in the flat. Advise him of the action he
must take. (10 marks)
(iii) Assume Tim did not sever his interest in the flat. Last week Ricky and Tim died
in the same road traffic accident. Who can assign the legal estate in the Flat?
(8 marks)
(iv) If the assignment in 2011 had stayed silent as to the nature of the ownership of
the Flat, explain how the statutory presumptions in section 9 of the
Conveyancing and Property Ordinance Cap. 219 would have affected the
interests in the Flat. (10 marks)
(b) In 2014, Dulwich Developments Ltd (“Dulwich”) developed a block of 30 residential

flats on Lot 123. The block is called ‘Sea View Buildings’ (‘Sea View’). In 2015,
Michael bought flat number 1 Sea View from Dulwich. The purchase included one
equal undivided 30th share of and in Lot 123 and of and in Sea View together with
the exclusive use right to Flat 1.
Dulwich and Michael then executed a Deed of Mutual Covenant for Sea View
(‘DMC’). The DMC provides that each owner has the right to the exclusive use of
the flat allotted to their one undivided share. The DMC was registered in the Land
Registry.
Explain the legal relationship between the owners of the flats in Sea View.
(12 marks)
Rich Terrace Mansions is a small block of 30 residential units which was built on land
granted by the Government by way of Conditions of Sale dated 1 April 1969. The
building was completed in 1971 and was governed by a deed of mutual covenant also
dated 1971. The designated use in the Conditions of Sale is residential.
2
The DMC for Rich Terrace Mansions provides, inter alia:
(i) Every co-owner shall pay management fees as specified in the DMC;
(ii) No owner may make structural alterations to his flat without the written consent
of the Manager;
(iii) No owner may keep dogs or other large pets on the premises; and,
(iv) No owner may use the premises other than for residential purposes.
Gary, a retired journalist is intending to purchase a small two-roomed flat in Rich Terrace
Mansions and comes to you, a solicitor, for advice on the following matters.
(1) After the assignment of the flat to him, will he receive the legal estate or equitable
interest in the flat? (6 marks)
(2) Although not a party to the deed of mutual covenant, will he be bound by covenants
(i) to (iii) identified above? (18 marks)
(3) If the Covenants do bind Gary- who may enforce them? (8 marks)
(4) Gary wishes to start a small independent newspaper and wishes to use the flat as an
office for the production of the newspaper. Can he do so? (10 marks)
(5) If he lets the flat to his friend Terry, will Terry be bound by the covenants?
(8 marks)
(a) Lionel Lord (‘Lionel’) purchased flat 3D Shangri La Buildings (the ‘Flat’) in
December 2013. In August 2017, Lionel and Tiffany Chan (‘Tiffany’) were
negotiating the terms of a lease of the Flat for Tiffany’s occupation. Eventually they
agreed orally to enter into a lease of the Flat starting on 1 September 2017 for a term
of four years at a monthly rent of HK$50,000.00 payable monthly in advance. They
also agreed that the lease would include a dish washer, gas stove and some split-level
air-conditioners currently in the Flat.
Lionel then wrote to Tiffany as follows:
Dear Miss Chan,
Earlier today we agreed that you would take a lease of my flat in Shangri La
Buildings for a term of four years starting on 1 September 2017 at a monthly rent of
HK$50,000 payable monthly in advance. My solicitors are preparing the draft lease
which will shortly be sent to you.
Lionel signed the letter.
3
The day after, Lionel wrote to Tiffany again as follows:
Dear Miss Chan,
I omitted to mention in my letter of yesterday that we had agreed you would have the
benefit of the use of the air-conditioners which are fitted in the flat.
Lionel signed the letter.
In late August, however, Lionel wrote to Tiffany again saying that he had changed
his mind and had decided not to let to her.
(i) Can Tiffany enforce the oral agreement for lease against Lionel? (20 marks)
(ii) If Lionel had not signed the letters sent to Tiffany but instead had instructed his
solicitors to send these letters containing the same information would your
answer differ? (6 marks)
(iii) Assuming the lease between Lionel and Tiffany was for three years, what are the
correct formalities for creating the lease? (6 marks)
(b) Assume that the lease is for four years and both Lionel and Tiffany execute the lease
under seal. The lease is dated 12 September 2017.
(i) Tiffany did not register the lease in the Land Registry. On 15 September 2017
Lionel mortgaged the Flat by way of legal mortgage to the Happy Fortune Bank
Ltd (‘Happy Fortune’) to secure a loan of HK$1 million. Happy Fortune knew
about Tiffany’s lease when the mortgage was created. Happy Fortune registered
its mortgage on 6 October 2017. Who has priority, Tiffany or Happy Fortune?
(12 marks)
(ii) Assume Lionel and Tiffany had never executed the lease under seal but instead
Lionel had orally agreed on 12 September 2017, to lease the Flat to Tiffany for a
term of two years starting immediately at a monthly rent of HK$50,000 and
Tiffany had moved into the Flat the same day. They do not sign a lease. Can
Tiffany enforce the lease against Lionel and Happy Fortune? (6 marks)
4
Date : 26 June 2017

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
In 1940 Mr Wan and his wife, who were immigrants from Mainland China, purchased a
small wooden structure (‘the property’) near Yuen Long in the New Territories in which
they lived with their two children, Amy and Peter. Sadly, Mrs Wan died during the
Japanese occupation in 1944. The property included a large garden in which Mr Wan
grew vegetables. The adjacent plot (‘the plot’) was unleased Government land on which
grew wild flowers and weeds. There were also some small trees. There was an old
broken-down fence around the plot. Mr Wan had observed that the plot had been vacant
for several years and he decided to use it as an extension to his vegetable garden. In 1950,
assisted by his children at times when they were not at school, Mr Wan dug up the wild
flowers and weeds and began to plant vegetables on part of the plot. After he cut down
the small trees in 1952 he used the whole plot for growing vegetables. In 1953 he
repaired the fence and put up a notice saying ‘Trespassers Keep Out’. The vegetables
grew well and he earned a reasonable income from their sale to traders in Yuen Long. Mr
Wan died in 1965 and his two children inherited all his assets. They continued to grow
vegetables on the plot. In 1970 Amy and Peter attended further studies in the UK and
leased the plot to their friend Joshua who continued to grow vegetables on the plot which
he sold at market in Yuen Long. Joshua paid rent on a monthly basis to Amy and Peter.
Amy and Peter resumed possession of the plot after they returned to Hong Kong in 1975.
In 1985, following the judgment of the Full Court in Attorney General v Melhado
Investments Ltd [1983] HKLR 327, Amy and Peter ceased to cultivate the plot but cleared
it of vegetables and leased it to Heavy Construction Co Ltd for storing their containers at
$5,000 per month on an annual renewable tenancy which contained a provision for an
incremental increase in the rent payable.
This arrangement continued until January 2017 when Amy and Peter received an eviction
notice from the Lands Department of Government alleging they had no title to the land
and giving notice that the plot was going to be used by Government for the construction
of a housing development.
(a) Amy and Peter have come to you, a solicitor, for advice as to whether they have any
title to the plot and whether they can resist the Government’s eviction demands.
Ignoring the issues raised in parts (b) and (c) of this question, advise them whether
they have acquired a title by adverse possession to the plot and can, accordingly,
resist the Government’s eviction demands. (26 marks)
(b) Government has contended that any claim that Amy and Peter might make to the plot
had been affected by the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance (Cap 150)
because a new lease had been created in 1988 when the Ordinance came into effect.
Advise Amy and Peter how to respond to this argument. (8 marks)
2
(c) Government has also contended that, upon the reversion of the New Territories to
Mainland China in 1997, any interest or title acquired or claimed against the Hong
Kong Colonial Government had come to an end and could not be enforced against
the PRC Government as reversioner.
Advise Amy and Peter how to respond to this argument. (8 marks)
(d) Would your answer differ if Amy and Peter had said in cross-examination during the
trial that, if asked, they would have been willing to pay rent to Government for use of
the plot? (8 marks)
(a) In early May 2017 Vivacious Cosmetics Co Ltd (‘Vivacious’) agreed orally to sell its
commercial premises in Kowloon Bay to Pacific Wine Importers Ltd (‘Pacific’).
Vivacious and Pacific identified the premises as floor 3, Bay Building, 12 North
Street, Kowloon Bay. The agreed purchase price was HK$18 million with the
completion date fixed at 2nd June 2017. They also agreed that Vivacious would give
vacant possession at completion and include all the fixtures in the building.
Vivacious solicitors wrote to Pacific’s solicitors on 12th May saying:
12 May 2017
Dear Sirs
Re Sale of Floor 3, Bay Building, 12 North Street, Kowloon Bay
We act for Vivacious in the sale of the above premises to your client Pacific. We
confirm that Vivacious has agreed to sell the premises to your client for HK$18
million with completion fixed for 2nd June 2017.
We are preparing the formal sale and purchase agreement. Please confirm that you
have instructions to act for Pacific and let us know whether your client will be
purchasing with the aid of a mortgage.
Yours faithfully
Tong and Man

Solicitors
3
Pacific’s solicitor wrote back on 15th May:
15 May 2017
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 3, Bay Building, 12 North Street, Kowloon Bay
Thank you for your letter of 12th May 2017. We confirm that we act for Pacific in
the purchase of the above premises from your client Vivacious. We confirm that
Pacific will be purchasing the property with the aid of a mortgage from the Bank
of East Asia.
Yours faithfully
Right and Wrong

Solicitors
One week later Right and Wrong wrote to Tong and Man saying:
22 May 2017
Dear Sirs
Re Purchase of Floor 3, Bay Building, Kowloon Bay
We are writing to inform you that our client, Pacific, has decided not to go ahead
with the purchase of the above property.
Yours faithfully
Right and Wrong

Solicitors
You are a solicitor in the employment of Tong and Man, Solicitors. Advise your
client Vivacious whether it can enforce the oral agreement against Pacific.
(36 marks)
(4 marks)
and purchase of land and provide two examples of acts which are likely to be held by
4
(a) Philip ‘owns’ a flat in a multi-storey building. Explain the nature of his ‘ownership’
of the flat. (6 marks)
(b) In the context of a deed of mutual covenant, explain the difference between a land
covenant and a personal covenant. Provide with case authority three examples of
land covenants commonly found in deeds of mutual covenant. (10 marks)
(c) (i) In the context of a multi-storey building, explain when a sub-deed of mutual
covenant may be required and explain its content and effect. (8 marks)
(ii) Explain whether the co-owners of units held under a sub-deed of mutual
covenant will be bound by ALL the covenants in the head deed of mutual
covenant. (4 marks)
(d) In what circumstances may a co-owner of shares in a multi-storey building enforce

the benefit of the covenants in the deed of mutual covenant against another co-
owner? (6 marks)
(e) Your client New Territories Development Ltd (‘NTD’) is considering purchasing a
vacant plot of land in the New Territories. The land was originally granted by
Government under a Block Crown lease dated 1907 which contained the usual
covenants. In the Schedule to the Block Crown lease the land is described as ‘dry
(i) whether part of the plot can be used for the construction of a youth hostel; and
(ii) whether the remainder of the plot can be used as a car-park for lorries.
Advise your client on these two issues. (16 marks)
5

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.

1
Hong Kong Land Law
Beautiful Gardens is a multi-storey building constructed by Ever Hopeful Development

Co Ltd (‘Ever Hopeful’) in 2010. It overlooks the harbour in Aberdeen and has a good
view of Ap Lei Chau. It has fifty floors and the ground floor is used as a shopping arcade
with ten shops selling different merchandise. According to the occupation permit the first
three floors of the building must be used for commercial use and the fourth to fiftieth
floors for residential use. The whole of the first floor is occupied by Good Books Ltd
(‘Good Books’), a company selling educational books. In 2015 flat 20A on the twentieth
floor was purchased by Mr Chan as a residence for him and his family. Flat 20B on the
twentieth floor is owned by Mrs Wong and has been let to Tommy To (‘Tommy’) on a
three year lease which will expire in 2018.
The deed of mutual covenant for Beautiful Gardens provides, inter alia, that:
(i) Every owner must keep his flat in good repair and condition; and
(ii) No owner may carry out any structural alterations to his or her flat without the
consent of the Manager of the building.
The deed of mutual covenant was executed under seal by Ever Hopeful and Mr Lam (the
purchaser of a flat on the fiftieth floor).
Mr Chan wishes to knock down an internal load-bearing wall (which constitutes a

structural alteration) in flat 20A.
(a) Is Mr Chan bound by the covenant not to make structural alterations without the
consent of the Manager? (15 marks)
(b) Is Tommy bound by the covenant to keep flat 20B in good repair? (15 marks)
Good Books wishes to divide up the first floor (to which 50 shares have been allocated)
into five separate units. The units will then be sold to five different companies to use for
commercial purposes.
(c) Explain to Good Books the legal mechanism by which such division should be
effected bearing in mind that new common parts will need to be created. You
should ignore any building issues. (10 marks)
(d) Mr Chow is intending to purchase shop 4 on the ground floor. He notes that the
vendor Quick Laundry Ltd has breached the deed of mutual covenant by
enclosing part of the common parts at the back of its unit for its own use. Advise
Mr Chow whether, if he goes ahead with the purchase, he will be responsible for
the breach committed by Quick Laundry Ltd. (10 marks)
2
(a) Jenny owns a flat in Sai Ying Pun. In 2013 she executed by way of a deed a six
year lease of her flat in favour of Leslie. The lease was not, however, registered in
the Land Registry. In 2016 Jenny sold and assigned the flat to Prudence
explaining to her that the assignment of the flat was subject to Leslie’s lease. Will
Prudence be bound by Leslie’s lease? (15 marks)
(b) Would your answer differ if the lease had been at a rack rent for 2 years?
(5 marks)
(c) Pacific Airways Ltd (‘Pacific’) entered into a binding sale and purchase
agreement to purchase Venus’s flat in Tsuen Wan for $6 million. The sale and
purchase agreement was signed by Pacific and Venus on 5th October 2016 and
Pacific paid the deposit of $600,000. The sale and purchase agreement was
registered on 30th October 2016. A charging order nisi in favour of Clarissa by
way of execution of judgment against Venus for $2 million was registered against
the flat on 15th October 2016 and a charging order absolute in favour of Clarissa
was registered on 20th October 2016. The assignment to Pacific is due to be
executed by Venus on 15th January 2017 on which date the residue of the purchase
price (ie $5.4 million) should be paid to Venus.
Advise Pacific
(i) whether it will be bound by the charging order and;
(ii) if the sale goes ahead, what it should do with the outstanding balance of
the purchase price (ie $5.4 million) which is due to be paid on 15th January
2017.
(25 marks)
(d) Would your answer to (c)(i) and (ii) above be the same if the sale and purchase
agreement had only been registered on 18th November 2016? (5 marks)
(a) Owen owns a flat in North Point. The flat is in a multi-storey building on land
which was granted by the Government to the developer New Globe Ltd under
Conditions of Exchange dated 1976.
(i) Explain what is meant by Conditions of Exchange distinguishing

Conditions of Exchange from Conditions of Sale. (3 marks)
(ii) Did New Globe Ltd receive a legal or equitable interest under the
Conditions of Exchange in 1976? (4 marks)
(iii) It is now 2016 and Owen wishes to sell his flat. How can he prove that he
holds the legal interest in his flat? (6 marks)
3
(iv) Would your answer to (iii) above differ if the Conditions of Exchange had
been dated 1967? (4 marks)
(b) A plot of land in Sai Wan Ho was granted to Mega Development Ltd (‘Mega’) in
1980 by way of Conditions of Sale. A restrictive term in the Conditions of Sale
metres. In 1981 Mega constructed a building 36 metres in height on the land and
an occupation permit was issued by the Buildings Department. In 1995 the land
and building were sold to Mini Construction Ltd (‘Mini’) which demolished the
building and constructed a replacement building 40 metres in height. Again, an
occupation permit was issued by the Buildings Department. This month Mini
received a notice from the Lands Department informing it that the restrictive term
as to the maximum permitted height in the Conditions of Sale had been breached
and requiring the building to be demolished.
Mini seeks your advice as to:

(i) whether it is bound by the restrictive term; and
(ii) whether it has any defence against an action by the Government to require
the demolition of the building.
Advise Mini. (20 marks)
(c) Your client Real Estate Developers Ltd (‘Real Estate’) has come to you for legal
advice. It is considering whether to purchase a vacant plot of land in Yuen Long in
the New Territories. The land was originally granted by Government under a
Block Crown lease dated 1906 which contained the usual covenants. In the
Schedule to the Block Crown lease the land is described as ‘dry cultivation’. Your
client wishes to know:
(i) whether the plot can be used for the construction of a hotel; and
(ii) whether the plot can be used as a dump for old cars.
Advise your client on these two issues. (13 marks)
4
Date : 27 June 2016

2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Instructions

awarded.


Hong Kong Land Law Past Papers (2023-2007) (1) - 1-70

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hong Kong Land Law Past Papers (2023-2007) (1) - 1-70

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCLL CONVERSION EXAMINATION JUNE 2023

Title of Paper : Hong Kong Land Law

Date : 14 June 2023

Time : 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. (Reading Time)

1. This is an open book examination.

4. This is a one and a half-hour examination. In addition, there is 15 minutes’ reading

6. Candidates must give reasons for all their answers.

DO NOT OPEN THIS QUESTION BOOK

Question 1 (50 marks)

i. HK$500,000 as initial deposit shall be paid upon the signing of this

iii. HK$9,000,000 shall be paid on completion on or before 7 July 2023 as

The covenant and provisions in the DMC include the following:

Dated 1 June 2023

~ End of Examination Paper ~

Title of Paper : Hong Kong Land Law

Date : 5 January 2023

Time : 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. (Reading Time)

1. This is an open book examination.

4. This is a one and a half-hour examination. In addition, there is 15 minutes’ reading

6. Candidates must give reasons for all their answers.

DO NOT OPEN THIS QUESTION BOOK