Re Liu Chung Chui

HCMP003533/2000

HCMP 3533/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3533 OF 2000

____________

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Yuen J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 1 September 2000

Date of Judgment: 1 September 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an application by Originating Summons by Mr Liu. I will deal with the declaratory order that I am prepared to make subsequently in this decision.

2. The evidence disclosed in the affirmation in support of the Originating Summons shows that Lot No. 158 and Section A of Lot No. 159 in Demarcation District No. 52 had been given to the Applicant in 1952 when he was 13 years old. The properties were given to the Plaintiff by way of a division of property. Since he was a minor at the time, his mother was made trustee in relation to those properties. The mother died in 1984 without having divested her trusteeship of the properties.

3. In December 1998, there was a Notice under the Lands Resumption Ordinance whereby amongst other properties, these properties were resumed. Under Gazette Notice No. 6230, this provides that the properties "shall" be resumed and revert to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on expiration of 3 months from the date of the affixing of the Notice to the land.

4. It would appear that after the date of the affixing of the Notice, an offer had been made by Government for Purchase by Agreement pursuant to Section 4A of the Lands Resumption Ordinance. However, Mr Mak, counsel for the Applicant, tells me that there has been no agreement and the land has not been purchased by agreement under Section 4A.

5. Consequently, under Section 5 of the Lands Resumption Ordinance, on the expiration of the 3 months referred to in Gazette Notice No. 6230, the properties reverted to Government and all the rights of the owner in or over the land or any part thereof absolutely ceased.

6. It is clear that if the present application for a vesting order had been made to the Court prior to the reversion to Government, an order in terms of the draft would have been made. However, now that the properties have reverted to Government, a vesting order is no longer appropriate because there is no interest in the land which can be vested in the Applicant.

7. Consequently, I consider that the correct declaration and order to be made in these circumstances should be as follows:

8. That the above-named Liu Chung Chui also spelt as Liu Chung Chu was immediately prior to their resumption by and reversion to Government under the Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap. 124 entitled to all the estate, rights, title, benefit and interest of and in Lot No. 158 and Section A of Lot No. 159 in Demarcation District No. 52 as the sole beneficial owner thereof and is entitled to all rights of the "former owner" under the provisions of the Lands Resumption Ordinance consequential to such resumption.

Representation:

Mr Bernard Mak, instructed by David Y Y Fung & Co., for the Applicant