Re Ho Lai Sheung also known as Lai Sheung Ho

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1154/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 June 2015.

1. This is an application under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29 relating to “All those two‑third parts or shares of and in all those pieces of ground situated at Tung Chung, Lantau Island, in the New Territories registered in the Land Registry as Lot Nos 1709, 1732, 1789, The Remaining Portion of Lot Nos 1701, Lot No 1755 and Lot No 1827 all in Demarcation District No 3 Tung Chung”.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCMP 1154/2015
Court
High Court CFI
Date04 Jun 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 1154/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1154 OF 2015

________________________

  IN THE MATTER of Section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29
  and
  IN THE MATTER of All those two‑third parts or shares of and in all those pieces of ground situated at Tung Chung, Lantau Island, New Territories, Hong Kong and registered in the Land Registry as Lots Nos 1709, 1732, 1789, The Remaining Portion of Lot No 1701, The Remaining Portion of Lot No 1755 and The Remaining Portion of Lot No 1827 all in Demarcation District No 3 Tung Chung (collectively “the Subject Interests”)

________________________

  HO LAI SHEUNG (何禮常) Applicant
  also known as LAI SHEUNG HO  

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt in Court
Dates of Hearing: 4 June 2015
Date of Judgment: 4 June 2015

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is an application under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29 relating to “All those two‑third parts or shares of and in all those pieces of ground situated at Tung Chung, Lantau Island, in the New Territories registered in the Land Registry as Lot Nos 1709, 1732, 1789, The Remaining Portion of Lot Nos 1701, Lot No 1755 and Lot No 1827 all in Demarcation District No 3 Tung Chung”.

2.The applicant was already the beneficial owner of one‑third share by virtue of a gift from Ho Yung Hee, his father on 31 March 2000, and his two brothers, Ho Ip Fong and Ho Yip Cheung were the donees of the other two‑thirds.  The applicant then bought their shares in November 2014.

3.It is apparent that a trust was created in March 1912 whereby the lots were held by one Ho Yeung Chi, an ancestor, during the minority of Ho Lin Yan and Ho Shu Yan.  Later, portions of lot nos 1701, 1755 and 1827 reverted to the government.

4.The two named beneficiaries have long since attained their majorities but on the face of it the trust has persisted.

5.In August 1961, Ho Yung Hi (or Hee), the applicant’s said father, had succeeded to the title to the lots held by the initial beneficiaries under the trust.

6.Every effort has been made to see when and where the trustee died, or in the unlikely event of his still being alive (he must have been at least 21 years of age in 1912 and therefore if he has survived he would be 124 years of age), his whereabouts.  Searches have been made to trace any documentation since the creation of the trust, which would show that the lots which were the subject of the trust had vested in the beneficiaries on their attaining their majority.  None has come to light.

7.There is no record of the trustee’s death or of any grant of probate in respect of his estate.

8.The applicant intends to sell the lots and seeks a vesting order under the Trustee Ordinance.

9.I am satisfied that the appropriate order should be made so that there is no incumbrance or uncertainty as to the applicant’s title.  Accordingly I order that the trusteeship of Ho Yeung Shi over all those two‑third parts of or shares in all those identified lots be removed and the entire legal estate of, and interest in the subject lots vests, in the applicant absolutely.

10.There will be no order for costs.

(Conrad Seagraott)
Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Lee Chi Wai of Peter KH Wong & Co, for the applicant

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case