Wong Fook Chuen v. Wong Hang Bing

DCMP 754/2025

[2025] HKDC 910

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 754 OF 2025

____________

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Introduction

1.Before me is a consent summons seeking to declare the assignment dated 14^th February 1996, registered in the Land Registry with memorial no. TM710988, and the Memorandum dated 14^th February 1996, registered in the Land Registry with memorial no. TM709431 against a property namely Flat 4, 23^rd Floor, Block T, Siu Tai House, Siu Hong Court, Nos. 2-22 Siu Hong Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Property”) be null and void.

2.The Plaintiff (“P”) commenced this action on 5 February 2025, by way of an originating summons (“the OS”) against the Defendant (“D”) seeking declaratory judgment that the assignment dated 14^th February 1996, registered in the Land Registry with memorial no. TM710988 (“the Assignment”), and the Memorandum of Sale and Purchase dated 14^th February 1996, registered in the Land Registry with memorial no. TM709431 (“the Memorandum”) against the Property in Siu Hong Court, Tuen Mun be null and void.

3.Before me is a consent summons for an order in terms of the OS with no order as to costs of these proceedings.

Legal Principles

4.If relief is to be granted without trial or evidence, the right course for the court is not to make a declaration but to state on what footing the relief is to be granted. On the other hand, the rule of the court that a declaration will not be granted when giving judgment by consent without a trial is a rule of practice and not of law and will give way to the paramount duty of the court to do the fullest justice to a party to which he is entitled. If the plaintiff has a genuine need for such relief and the court could properly grant it based on the merits of the case, declarations can be made. See Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, Vol 1, §15/16/2.

Application of the legal principles

5.Evidence has been provided to me through an affirmation of P where he explained the background and reasons for the declaratory relief he sought.

6.P is the brother of D. The Property was bought in the names of both P and their mother Ko Ping (the “Mother”) in 1984 but with financial assistance of D. The Mother passed away shortly after the completion of sales of the Property and P became the sole owner of the Property.

7.Since P always wanted to have D’s beneficial interest in the Property registered, he entrusted a law firm clerk to have D’s name registered on the Land Registry. P and D were therefore directed to execute the Assignment and the Memorandum, which were resulted from a transaction where D acquired one equal undivided moiety or half share of the Property from P at consideration of HK$380,000.00 (the “1996 Transaction”) despite no actual payment was made in the 1996 Transaction.

8.After P made full repayment of the amount of the Property due by him to D, D instructed her solicitors to facilitate to transfer her interest in the Property back to P where parties found out the Assignment was executed without the requisite approval from the Hong Kong Housing Authority thus holds no legal validity.

9.D instructed her solicitors to prepare an agreement to abandon her interest in the Property for the Land Registry’s consideration. Such agreement was rejected by the Land Registry for registration. After which, a Notice of No Objection was signed by D on 21^st January 2025, i.e. before the OS was taken out with an intention to transfer her interests to P.

10.In my view, the siblings’ concerns are genuine, their requests for the orders now in the consent summons legitimate. The declarations do serve useful purposes in terms of clearing any doubts over the rights and interests of the Property, and remove any potential questions arise from the current registered titles. The declarations sought are appropriate to give the fullest justice to the parties.

11.I grant the application under the consent summons in terms of the consent summons submitted to me with clerical amendments.

Attendance of the Plaintiff represented by Kenneth CC Man & Co. was excused

Attendance of the Defendant represented by Yeung & Chan was excused