Lok Tin Choi v. Lai Kwai Lin

HCMP 315/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 315 OF 2012

________________________

____________________

________________________________________

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y   J U D G M E N T

________________________________________

1.I handed down judgment in this matter on 19 June 2014.  In paras 24 to 26 of the judgment, I dealt with the consequences of the resumption notice.  Mr Lok’s solicitors have subsequently drawn my attention to the fact that in this case the resumption was not pursuant to the Lands Resumption Ordinance (“the LRO”), Cap 124, but instead, was pursuant to the Railways Ordinance (“the RO”), Cap 519.

2.Section 18(2), RO is in the following terms:

“Unless the Chief Executive has previously revoked the order for resumption, the resumption of the land described in the order is to be effective upon expiration of the period of notice specified in the order and, upon its expiry, that land is to-

(a) where it is an undivided share in land, vest in The Financial Secretary Incorporated together with such rights to the use and occupation of any building or part of the building as may be appurtenant to the ownership of that share; and

(b) in all other cases, revert to the Government,

but in either case the land is to vest or revert without any conveyance and free of all mortgages, charges, claims, estates, easements, rights or interests of any kind in favour of any person.”

3.Although not identical to s 5 of the LRO, this provision is to precisely the same effect.  Upon the expiry of the term fixed by the notice, the land reverts to the Government.

4.In those circumstances the principle enunciated by Yuen J in Re Liu Chung Chui must apply.  On 28 January 2010, the date upon which the notice specified in the resumption order expired, Lots 1805 and 1811 reverted to the Government and any rights that either Mr Lok or Madam Lai had in respect of those lots ceased to exist.

5.The solicitors for the parties have notified me that they are in agreement with this proposition.

6.Consequently, the reference to the LRO in para 26 of the judgment is to read “Railways Ordinance, Cap 519”.

7.In para 3, the Lot No “1908” should read “1805”.  In para 7, the first reference to “Lok Sang” should read “Lok Sang Cheung”.  The judgment is corrected accordingly.  

Marie Tsang, Dustin Chan, for the plaintiff

Wong Hui & Co, for the defendant