Lau Yun Lin v. Kwan Tseung Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 29/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 March 2017.

1.   Paragraph 3 (1) be amended to read “The defendant was a Hong Kong incorporated company and at the material time the owner of the parcel of land and building constructed thereon known as Man Cheong Building, No 5 Tsing To Path, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong;” ;

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCMP 29/2017
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 Mar 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 29/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 29 OF 2017

________________________

  IN THE MATTER of All that Shop Space on the South side on Ground Floor of Man Cheong Building, No. 5 Tsing To Path, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Property”)
  and
  IN THE MATTER of Section 25A of The High Court Ordinance (Cap 4)

________________________

BETWEEN

  LAU YUN LIN (劉潤年) Plaintiff

and

  KWAN TSEUNG COMPANY LIMITED
(均翔有限公司)
Defendant

________________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Douglas Lam SC in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 14 March 2017

Date of Decision: 14 March 2017

Date of Reasons for Decision: 22 March 2017

Date of Corrigendum: 27 March 2017

____________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

____________________

Please note the following amendments in the Reasons for Decision dated 22 March 2017:

1.   Paragraph 3 (1) be amended to read “The defendant was a Hong Kong incorporated company and at the material time the owner of the parcel of land and building constructed thereon known as Man Cheong Building, No 5 Tsing To Path, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong;” ;

2.   Paragraph 10 be amended to read “More fundamentally, as long as a Hong Kong company is and remains dissolved, its property is bona vacantia and belongs to the Government — section 752 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) (“CO”).  The proper defendant to the present application should therefore have been the Government, being the current legal owner of any residual interest in the Property that may have been vested in the defendant prior to its dissolution.” ; and

3.   Paragraph 17 be amended to read “Similarly, in my view, the passage in Hong Kong Conveyancing Law and Practice mentioned above in relation to a company no longer in existence is wrong and should not be followed.” .

(CHEUNG Man Kit)
Clerk to Deputy High Court Judge Douglas Lam SC

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 29/2017