In Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou ([2015] UKSC 66) PM and DM sold property which was subject to a charge in favour of Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd (‘the Bank’). They contracted to purchase a new house using the proceeds of sale. The Bank agreed to this on condition that they obtained a first charge over the new house. The purchase of the new house was in the name of PM and DM’s daughter (‘the daughter’). She knew nothing of the arrangement with the Bank or of its involvement. The purchase was completed without the creation of a valid charge in favour of the Bank. The Bank claimed to be entitled to be subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien in respect of the new house. The obstacle that it faced was that it could be argued that it was not the source of the funds used to pay for the purchase (the proceeds of sale of the old house had been used).

The Supreme Court was unanimous in finding that the Bank was subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien. The majority did so on the basis of unjust enrichment with equitable subrogation as the remedy. Lord Carnwath reached the conclusion on the more straightforward basis that the Bank was beneficially entitled to the proceeds of sale of the old house under a Quistclose trust and so was entitled to step into the shoes of the unpaid vendor. Lord Neuberger relied on unjust enrichment but expressed agreement with Lord Carnwath’s views.

An unjust enrichment claim requires four questions to be answered:

1. has the defendant been enriched?
2. was the enrichment at the claimant’s expense?
3. was the enrichment unjust?
4. are there any defences available to the defendant?

(Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50).

The daughter had been unjustly enriched at the bank’s expense. This was because ‘the value of the property to [the daughter] was considerably greater than it would have been but for the avoidance of the charge and the Bank was left without the security which was central to the whole arrangement.’ ([24] Lord Clarke). There was a sufficient causal link between the benefit to the daughter and the loss to the Bank ([27] Lord Clarke). Lord Neuberger commented that the daughter’s enrichment was unjust because she had received the house as a gift from her parents and that if she had been a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the Bank’s rights then it may not have been possible to say that her enrichment was unjust ([70]). Lord Clarke thought that the fact that the daughter was a donee was relevant when considering whether any defences were available to the daughter.

Subrogation to the unpaid vendor’s lien was available as a remedy to reverse the daughter’s unjust enrichment ([49] Lord Clarke). Lord Neuberger thought that it would be ‘hard to identify a more appropriate remedy’ since subrogation would give the Bank a right similar to that which it should have had under the anticipated charge ([79]). Lord Neuberger stressed that the conclusion that the Bank should be subrogated to the unpaid Vendor’s lien needed to be supported by principle ([94]). He thought that the facts that the house could only have been acquired using funds that the Bank could have demanded, that the failure to grant a Charge was the result of the solicitors acting for the Bank and the daughter and that the use of the funds with the Bank’s agreement discharged the unpaid vendor’s lien ([95]).

Lord Neuberger pointed out that the subrogation claim would have been uncontroversial had the Bank insisted on receiving the proceeds of sale of the original house and then making a fresh loan. The fact that they agreed to allow the proceeds of sale to be retained by the solicitors and re-used for the acquisition by the daughter was ‘a small and practical change’. It would be pure formalism if this change were to defeat the Bank’s claim ([99]).

Lord Carnwath thought that the Bank’s subrogation claim could succeed ‘by a strict application of the traditional rules of subrogation, without any need to extend them beyond their traditional limits.’ ([107]). He thought that this was a case where equitable subrogation was available without any need for recourse to the law of unjust enrichment and that there was a distinction to be made between a claim to a property right (subrogation to a vendor’s lien) and one based on unjust enrichment ([108]). He was prepared to accept that subrogation might be an available remedy in an unjust enrichment case but he did not decide the case on the basis of unjust enrichment ([109] – [110]).

In Lord Carnwath’s view, the Bank had to establish that its money had been used towards the purchase price to allow it to be subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien ([128]). It must be possible to trace money belonging to the Bank into the money used to pay the purchase price; ‘a sufficient link could not be found in a looser test based on economic reality or simple causation’ ([132]). The Bank did have a sufficient interest in the funds used to pay the purchase price. The Quistclose principle could be applied; the solicitors acting for the daughter and the Bank held the proceeds of sale of the original property for the Bank but had the power to apply it to the purchase of the property on behalf of the daughter ([134] – [139]).  There was no difficulty ‘in finding the necessary “tracing link” between the Bank and the money used to purchase the new property.’

Michael Lower

In Join Win Holdings Ltd v City Target Ltd ([2015] HKEC 2477, CA) the first instance judge dismissed P’s claim for a declaration that it had entered into an oral contract for the acquisition of D1’s property and for specific performance of that contract. There was no writing to satisfy section 3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and part performance had not been pleaded. The judge had also ordered that the lis pendens registered at the Land Registry be vacated. P appealed against this judgment and registered the notice of appeal as a lis pendens at the Land Registry. D1 successfully applied for the vacation of the notice of appeal from the Land Registry.

The Court of Appeal (Cheung JA giving the only full judgment) referred to the court’s power under section 19 of the Land Registration Ordinance to order the vacation of a lis pendens when it is satisfied that ‘the litigation is not prosecuted bona fide, or for other good cause shown.’ It also pointed to its inherent jurisdiction to order the vacation of a registration.

In deciding whether or not to vacate the registration, the court had to assess the merits of the appeal. This appeal was doomed to fail given the lack of any writing to satisfy section 3(1) ([2.11]). ‘The notice of appeal should never have been registered because putting the plaintiff’s case at its highest it is not one that can be said to affect the property.’ ([2.16]).

Michael Lower

In Capehorn v Harris ([2015] EWCA Civ 955, CA (Eng)) C and H had been unmarried cohabitees but the relationship had come to an end. The question was whether H had a beneficial interest in property which was in C’s sole name. The first instance judge found that there was no actual agreement to this effect but that one should be imputed to the parties.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision. Imputation is relevant only to the question of quantification and not to the prior question in sole name cases as to whether or not there is a common intention constructive trust ([16] and [17] per Sales LJ). As there was no actual agreement, there was no common intention constructive trust.

Michael Lower

In Chen lily v Yip Tsun Wah Alvan ([2015] HKEC 2611, CFI) C and Y were unmarried co-habitees of the flat acquired by them as their family home with a view to marriage. Title was in joint names and it seems that this was a legal joint tenancy. The purchase was mainly financed through a mortgage over the property.

The couple split up and Y left the home. C alone bore all of the repayments of mortgage principal and interest from 2011 onwards. Y offered to  contribute half of the mortgage payments but C refused. Y suggested that the property be let out (C had married and no longer lived at the flat at the time of Y’s suggestion) but C refused this.

The court was asked to resolve the dispute as to the parties’ respective beneficial interests. Au-Yeung J. referred to Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott. In ordinary domestic cases where title is in joint names, there is a presumption of equality. The parties are unlikely to have intended that a balance sheet should be drawn up of their financial contributions ([17] – [21]). There were no unusual facts in this case to warrant a departure from the presumption of equality. Nor was there any evidence of a change of intention. Although Y left the home, the facts surrounding the departure did not suggest there had been a variation of the original common intention.

Y’s departure and offer to meet half of the mortgage payments amounted to an equitable severance of the joint tenancy. There should be an equitable accounting. After separation, C made all of the mortgage payments and her share of the proceeds of sale of the flat should be increased to include half of the repayments of principal made by her after separation. She was not entitled to compensation for the interest payments she had made; this was to reflect the fact that she had refused to rent out the flat at Y’s suggestion (indicating that she had sole possession of the flat). She should also be given credit for her outstanding credit card debts at the time of separation. These debts had been incurred to fund the couple’s joint living expenses.

Michael Lower

In Luen Ford Industrial Co Ltd v Woo Ming Han Juliana ([2015] HKEC 2639, CFI) D alleged that her father had procured her late mother’s execution of a transfer of the mother’s shares in a company (‘the parent company’) through the exercise of undue influence.  Her primary claim was for a declaration that the transfer was null and void. A subsidiary of the parent company (‘the subsidiary’) owned an industrial unit (‘the property’). D also sought orders preventing the subsidiary from selling the property or, alternatively, from disposing of the proceeds of sale. D’s solicitor registered the writ as a lis pendens against the property.

Deputy Judge Kenneth Kwok SC  ordered the registration to be vacated pursuant to section 19 of the Land Registration Ordinance. He referred to Thian’s Plastics Industrial Company Limited v Tin’s Chemical Industrial Company Limited and Anstalt Nybro v HK Resort Company Limited. This litigation did not affect land. There was no action against the owner of the land (the subsidiary). The action concerned the father and the parent company and their future conduct. The claim for an injunction to restrain the sale of the land was an artifice designed to give the appearance that there was a claim affecting land:

‘The registration was a blatant tactical move to bring about a standstill in the sale of the Subject Property. What is objectionable is that Juliana Woo and her then solicitors did not seek judicial approval to achieve her objective. Instead, they simply abused the registration system.’ ([33])

The alternative claim restraining the disposal of the sale proceeds was adequate protection for D.

The judgment closes with this warning:

‘Registration of a lis pendens is a clog on the owner’s title. Those who act in concert to procure registration of a lis which does not affect land should beware of possible liability.’ ([36])

Costs were awarded against D on an indemnity basis.

Michael Lower

In Hung Hing v Director of Lands ([2015] 5 HKLRD 516, CA) the owners of land in the New Territories had applied to the District Lands Office (‘DLO’) for permission to build small houses on their respective lots. There was no vehicular accessway to the lots. Land owned by the Government separated the lots from the public highway. The owners made a separate application to the DLO to buy land from the Government to provide the accessway. They argued that the DLO had an obligation to sell the land to the owners to give effect to the Small House Policy and the policy requiring emergency vehicular access (‘EVA’) to the homes to be built. The DLO refused to sell the access land to the owners and the owners sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of this decision. Leave was refused at first instance on the basis that the decision was not amenable to judicial review: the Government’s decision was reached by it in its capacity as a private landowner. The owners appealed against this refusal but the appeal failed.

It had been established in Koon Ping Leung v Director of Lands that some DLO decisions under the Small House Policy were amenable to judicial review. This did not mean that every decision linked to the implementation of the Small House Policy was susceptible to judicial review. The published materials laid before the court made it clear that those applying under the Small House Policy were expected to make their own arrangements concerning access. It was no part of the Policy to provide (or even require) permanent vehicular access. It was therefore not possible to argue that the Policy had been misapplied in this instance.

Nor was it unreasonable or irrational for the Policy to be framed in these terms. Whether or not to sell or grant rights over its land was a decision that the Government took in its capacity as landowner or landlord. Its decisions in this regard, and the policies that inform those decisions, are not amenable to judicial review ([30] per Cheung CJHC). Given the many competing demands on land in Hong Kong, this stance made perfect sense ([29]).

Even if the decision or the alleged omission from the Policy were amenable to judicial review, this did not mean that the Policy had to require the Government to provide access. A Policy could equally well require an owner to show that he had the necessary access rights before he could make an application under the Small House Policy ([32]). In any event, there was no evidence to show that the owners had exhausted other possible alternatives (such as negotiating with other landowners in the area for the necessary rights) ([33]).

Michael Lower

In Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd ([2015] UKSC 72) BNP granted a lease to M & S. The lease contained a break clause. The lease required M & S to pay rent quarterly in advance. The break right could only be validly exercised if there were no rent arrears at the time when the lease would end assuming the valid exercise of the break right (the ‘break date’). M & S had also to make a further payment to BNP if it exercised the break right. M & S served a clause to trigger the break right, paid the quarterly rent due immediately before the break date and made the further required payment. It now sought to recover the proportion of the rent attributable to the period from the break date up to what would have been the next quarter date under the lease. It argued that a term requiring BNP to make such a repayment should be implied into the lease. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that there was no such implied term.

Lord Neuberger gave the main judgment. The decisive factor was ‘the established legal background against which the Lease was entered into, and in particular the general attitude of the law to the apportionability of rent payable in advance.’ ([42]) Rent is not apportionable in time in common law ([43]). Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 varied this with regard to rent payable in arrear but not rent payable in advance ([45]). Thus:

‘Save in a very clear case indeed, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they have entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent has been so long and clearly established. Given that it is so clear that the effect of the case-law is that rent payable and paid in advance can be retained by the landlord, save in very exceptional circumstances (eg where the contract could not work or would lead to an absurdity) express words would be needed before it would be right to imply a term to the contrary.’ ([50])

There was a broader discussion of Lord Hoffmann’s statement in Belize Telecom that the process of implying terms into a contract was part of the general process of contractual interpretation. Lord Neuberger was critical of this view. He saw construction of the express terms of the contract as being logically prior to the question as to whether or not a term was to be implied ([28]) and as being ‘a rather different exercise’ ([29]). Lords Carnwath and Clarke, on the other hand, expressed support for Lord Hoffmann’s formulation. Lord Carnwath expressed the view that Lord Hoffmann’s formulation did not involve any watering down of the previous authorities to the effect that the implication of terms is based on necessity ([58] – [60]). Thus:

‘While I accept that more stringent rules apply to the process of implication, it can be a useful discipline to remind onseself that the object remains to discover what the parties have agreed or (in Lady Hale’s words) “must have intended” to agree. In that respect it remains, and must be justified as, a process internal to the relationship between the parties, rather than one imposed from outside by statute or the common law’. ([69])

Lord Clarke said:

‘like Lord Neuberger (at para 26) I accept that both (i) construing the words which the parties have used in their contract and (ii) implying terms into the contract, involve determining the scope and meaning of the contract. On that basis it can properly be said that both processes are part of construction of the contract in a broad sense.’ ([76]).

Michael Lower

In Kwok Hon Shing v Happy Team (China) Ltd ([2015] HKEC 2038, LT) L granted T a four year lease of a unit in an industrial building. There were sub-lettings of part for residential purposes in breach of a covenant not to use the property for residential purposes. These breaches continued even after L’s complaint letter of 12 November 2014. L began forfeiture proceedings in February 2015. The breaches of covenant continued at least until 14 February 2015 but the unlawful sub-tenancies were subsequently terminated. L continued to accept rent until April 2015.

The lease contained a clause to the effect that acceptance of rent would not constitute a waiver of any breach by T. This clause had no effect in this case (if it ever has any effect at all); it could not alter the legal implications of acceptance of rent with knowledge of the breach ([33] – [35]).

In the case of a continuing breach of the user covenant, acceptance of rent only waived the breach up to the date of acceptance of rent. Subsequent breaches were only waived to the extent that L knew at the date of acceptance of rent that they would continue ([42]). The application to forfeit the lease was an unequivocal election to determine the lease and acceptance of rent after that could not amount to a waiver ([47]). L had not waived the breach and was entitled to forfeit. The breaches had, however, been rectified and T was granted relief from forfeiture under section 58 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance.

Michael Lower

In Cavendish Square Holding BV  v Talal El Makdessi and Parking Eye limited v Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67]) the UK Supreme Court addressed fundamental issues concerning the law of penalties in two cases. One concerned provisions in a very substantial share sale; these provided for the sellers first to lose their entitlement to very substantial installments of the sale price and, second, to transfer their remaining shares to the buyers at a reduced price which left goodwill out of account. These provisions would take effect if the sellers defaulted by soliciting customers for a competing business or working for a competitor. The sellers defaulted and these provisions were invoked by the buyers. The sellers contended that these provisions were penalties and unenforceable. The other concerned a provision whereby motorists agreed that they would pay GBP 85 if they overstayed a two hour free parking limit. A motorist overstayed (by 56 minutes) and Parking Eye Limited (which operated the car park on behalf of its owner) demanded the GBP 85. The motorist contended that it was a penalty. The Supreme Court was unanimously of the view that none of the provisions just outlined amounted to a penalty.

Penalties are clauses that operate in the event of a breach of a primary obligation by a contracting party. They may provide for the payment of money, the transfer of property or the loss of the right to receive money (such as purchase price installments) from the other contracting party. Where any such provision: (a) serves a legitimate commercial interest; and (b) is not  unconscionable or extravagant then it is enforceable. Otherwise, it is a penalty and unenforceable. The idea that the sum payable or forfeited must always be a genuine pre-estimate of loss occasioned by individual breaches of contract is too narrow an approach to the question as to whether or not there is a penalty. One has to look more broadly at whether the provision in question protects some legitimate interest or purpose of the innocent party.

The common law concerning penalties and the equitable jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture have common origins and serve similar purposes. They are, nonetheless, distinct from each other and might each be applicable in a particular case. Thus, the court might determine that a particular provision is not a penalty and then go on to consider whether it should grant relief. There is a ‘safe haven’ for the forfeiture of deposits that are restricted to the amount that is customary in a given jurisdiction. If a provision is a penalty, it is completely unenforceable, the courts cannot allow the provision to be partially enforced.

In Cavendish Square, a large proportion of the very substantial purchase price was attributable to goodwill. The clauses restricting the sellers from soliciting clients or engaging in a competing business were designed to protect the goodwill. This was the legitimate commercial purpose of the provisions. Where the sellers broke these clauses, it was not extravagant or unconscionable for them to lose the right to receive payments of the purchase price that were intended to reflect the ongoing value of this goodwill. On balance, the Supreme Court was of the view that the sellers’ obligation to transfer their remaining shares in the company to the sellers at a reduced price could be justified on the same grounds.

As for the car parking case, the legitimate interest was to secure an adequate turnover of traffic on a car park that served a shopping outlet and to prevent the availability of free parking from being abused by people who were not shoppers at the retail outlet. The provision for overstaying also funded the operating costs of the car park and made the offer of free parking possible. The amount of the charge for overstaying was in line with industry guidelines for car park operators and was clearly publicised so that motorists would be aware of it before they entered the car park.

Michael Lower

In Wide Power Corp Ltd v Manhattan Court (IO) ([2015] 4 HKLRD 480, CFI) the incorporated owners of a building sought an injunction requiring an owner to remove unauthorised building works carried out in breach of the DMC. They registered the claim as a lis pendens. The owner successfully argued that the counterclaim did not relate to land or any interest or charge on land and so did not fall within the definition of a lis pendens in section 1A of the Land Registration Ordinance. A lis pendens must involve a claim to a proprietary interest or right in real property (Louis Chan J. at [76]). Here, the claim was an in personam claim against the owner. If the owner were to sell the property, the new owner would not be affected by the proceedings against the former owner. He would, of course, be liable under the terms of the DMC but this would involve a fresh claim against the new owner.

Michael Lower

In Melco Crown Gaming (Macau) Ltd v Wong Yam Tak ([2016] HKEC 237) title to the family home was in H’s name but W had an equal beneficial interest under a common intention constructive trust. M was granted a charging order nisi in May 2013 and (having been duly registered) this had priority over a consent order made in July 2013 in matrimonial proceedings ordering H to transfer his interest in the property to W ([43] Deputy Judge Yee).

The normal practice would be for the court dealing with ancillary relief in the matrimonial proceedings also to deal with the charging order. Here, however, there was unlikely to be any further application for ancillary relief ([48] – [49]).

Section 20(3) of the High Court Ordinance requires the court to consider all the circumstances of the case when considering whether or not to make the charging order absolute. It has to consider the personal circumstances of the debtor and whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order. The factors to be borne in mind and the orders that might be made were considered by the English Court of Appeal in Kresmen v Agrest ([2013] EWCA Civ 41). There is a need to strike a balance between the expectations of the creditor and the hardship to W and the children. In Melco, W’s daughter was adult and independent so only W’s interest in having a roof over her head was relevant.

Here, even if the charging order over H’s share were made absolute, Melco could not expect to succeed in an application for an order for sale ([57]). Thus, a fair balance could be struck by making the order absolute. W would remain in exclusive occupation of the property ([58] – [59]).

Michael Lower

In Erlam v Rahman ([2016] EWHC 111) E had the benefit of a charging order over a house in R’s sole name. R’s wife (‘W’) claimed that she had the benefit of a prior interest over the property by virtue of a Deed of Trust. The Deed of Trust, on its proper construction, did not purport to create a trust but to record the fact that W had contributed 75% of the purchase price and so had a 75% beneficial interest. Chief Master Marsh pointed out that the property had been acquired as a buy-to-let investment. As a result, the right approach, following Laskar v Laskar, was to apply the resulting trust approach rather than the approach applicable to jointly-owned family property explained in Stack v Dowden. W had not shown that she had made any qualifying contributions and so she had no beneficial entitlement. Following Laskar, there was a clear difference in approach as between family homes (‘the domestic consumer context’) and the commercial context (even when the business partners were also family members).

The judge went on to consider the possibility that the Deed of Trust did not intend to record the existence of a prior implied trust but was intended to create a trust. In this case, he would have held that the document was a sham (see [42] – [44] for a discussion of the legal principles concerning shams particularly in the context of a property transaction). The existence of the Deed of Trust had not been revealed to any third parties and no restriction relating to it had been registered at the Land Registry. As between themselves, R and W acted as if the property belonged to R (he kept all of the rental income) ([78] – [82]).

Michael Lower

In Cheung Kwong Yuen v Sun Hui Fang ([2016] 1 HKLRD 464, CA) C was the registered owner of one floor of a property and of the roof above it. S lived in a room on the roof. C had applied for an order for vacant possession of the room despite S’s claim to have extinguished C’s title by adverse possession. S claimed that her brother had bought the flat in 1992. She relied on an informal and unregistered document purporting to transfer title to him. The Lands Tribunal ordered S to leave the property: it held that adverse possession was not available to one who claimed to be a tenant or purchaser of the property. The Court of Appeal (Kwan JA giving the Court’s reasons) pointed out that this was a mistake as to the law and ordered the case to be retried in the District Court. ‘There is no rule of law that [factual possession and intention to possess] cannot be established for a person who mistakenly believes that he has good title or that he is a lawful tenant and does not realise he is trespassing on another’s land.’ ([11]).

Michael Lower

In Guo Jianjun v Dragon Fame Investment Ltd ([2015] HKEC 1986, CA) S entered into an agreement to sell to P four office units (all on the same floor of the building). The agreement contemplated that there would be a re-partitioning of the office units owned by S. The units to be sold were the units as they would be after the re-partitioning. The contract contained a clause obliging S to obtain the certificate of an ‘Authorized Person’ to confirm the legality of the re-partitioning works. The agreement went on to provide that P would not raise any requisitions, queries or objections concerning the re-partitioning works. The re-partitioning works were carried out soon after the agreement was entered into. S produced an architect’s certificate of compliance. This satisfied S’s contractual obligations but it was produced at 6.07 pm on the completion date. It was common ground that the midnight rule applied. P argued that S was in breach of an implied obligation to produce the certificate at a reasonable time. It rescinded and sought the return of the deposit and damages. S argued that there was no implied term and that it was enough for it to have produced the certificate before midnight on the completion date.

The Court of Appeal (Lam V-P giving the judgment) looked at the English and Hong Kong authorities setting out the modern approach to contractual interpretation. This required the court to look at the rest of the contract and the whole of the relevant context / factual matrix. It also looked at what was said in Belize Telecom concerning the implication of terms (and linking this process to the broader process of contractual interpretation).

The obligation had to be construed in the context of the related clause which barred the raising of requisitions concerning the partitioning. It was also necessary to take account of the obvious commercial purpose served by the obligation: if S did not produce an adequate certificate there could be a doubt as to the legality of the works which could prevent P from giving good title on any future sale. Thus, there was to be implied a term ‘that the certificate would be a proper certificate prepared by an authorized person in good faith’ ([34]).

Given that the architect was commissioned by, and would report to, S P had to be given a reasonable time to assess whether or not the certificate satisfied the contractual obligation. They had to be given a reasonable time in which to do so. A term to this effect was to be implied ([41]).

What was a reasonable time? Had the implied obligation been observed in this case? The court referred to its earlier decision in Summit Link v Sunlink Group:

‘What should be considered as a reasonable time must be considered in the light of the prevailing circumstances, including the parties’ knowledge at the time if it can be proved and what the parties would each be reasonably contemplating at the time.’ (at 735 – 6 per Woo JA).

The court also referred to the headnote to the report of Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd ((2001) 4 HKCFAR 381):

‘The time which a vendor must allow, was the time reasonably required by the purchaser to perform its obligations, in relation to completion, in the ordinary course of business. This would include the purchaser’s dealing with bankers and solicitors.’

Lam V-P explained what this meant in the present case:

‘I am therefore of the view that the certificate should have been provided to the plaintiffs’ solicitors within a reasonable time before the end of the office hours [on the completion date]. The reasonable time should be long enough to afford the plaintiff’s solicitors a reasonable opportunity to conduct the checks which are reasonably necessary and to do so in the normal course of business. The time should not be so short that the solicitors would have to stretch all their available resources to the extreme so as to accomplish the tasks.’ ([46]).

Further, ‘one should proceed on the general assumption that purchasers will rely on mortgage financing in a conveyancing transaction’ ([50]).

Production of the certificate after the close of business on the date of completion did not satisfy the reasonable time requirement.

Michael Lower

In Freder Centre (IO) v Gringo Ltd ([2016] HKEC 418, CA) the owners of units in a commercial building placed a sign with a trade name on part of the external wall of the building. This was a breach of a term of the DMC prohibiting the placing of signs anywhere on the building except in spaces assigned for that purpose (the sign was not in an assigned space). It was also a breach of the covenant implied by section 34I of the Building Management Ordinance not to convert any common part to private use without the consent of the owners’ corporation.

In its defence, the owner of the units relied on acquiescence. The terms were of such a nature that acquiescence was possible; the space could have been made an assigned space, the owners’ corporation could have consented to the private use of the common part. The question was whether there had been acquiescence. The owners’ corporation had informed the owner of the units of its objection as soon as it learned of the breach. Looking at the incident in isolation, they could not be accused of standing idly by when the breach was committed. Gringo Ltd, however, pointed to the fact that the corporation had a long history of tolerating such breaches. It was this history that it relied on as amounting to an acquiescence. The owners’ corporation said that its limited resources meant that it could not bring proceedings in respect of all of the past breaches at once; it had a policy of concentrating on recent breaches.

The owners’ corporation’s argument had succeeded at first instance but was rejected on appeal. Chu JA giving the Court’s judgment said:

‘In our view, the fact that nearly all the other owners or occupiers of basement and ground floor units have for many years committed similar breaches, and the applicant has never taken any enforcement action or proceedings against them suggests that the breaches are prevalent and have over the years been tolerated by the applicant. This is directly relevant and germane to whether there is assent or lying by on the part of the applicant and whether it is unjust to grant the injunctive relief against the respondents.’ ([28]).

There had been acquiescence and  it would be inequitable to grant the injunction sought.

Michael Lower

In Kan Wai Chung v Hau Wan Fai ([2016] HKLRD 632, CFI) developers entered into cooperation agreements with the plaintiffs (villagers with ding rights). The developers transferred title to parcels of land in a village to the plaintiffs. The agreement provided that the villagers held the lots as nominees and on trust for the developers. The developers and villagers worked together to exploit the ding rights. It was accepted by all of the parties that this aspect of the agreement and the actions done in pursuance of it were illegal.The houses were built and the developers entered into sale contracts (‘the first contracts’) with third parties; the villagers were nominally the vendors in those agreements. The villagers then entered into their own contracts with another purchaser for the sale of the same lots (‘the second contracts’). The developers brought proceedings seeking an injunction to prevent the second contracts from being completed so as to interfere with performance of the first contracts. These proceedings were ultimately settled in such a way as to allow the developers to complete the first contracts and retain the proceeds of sale. The villagers now brought proceedings against the developers and the solicitors who had prepared the first contracts alleging that they amounted to an unlawful conspiracy. This had caused them loss in the form of their own legal costs in defending the injunction proceedings and the costs order made against them.

This was a trial of two preliminary issues. The first of these was whether the villagers had any equitable interest in the property. If they did not then they could not be said to have suffered any loss as a result of the outcome of the earlier proceedings ([33] per Anthony To J). The villagers had not given any consideration for the transfer of the land to them (though the  assignments to them stated otherwise). On the face of it, therefore, the developers could rely on the presumption of resulting trust. The villagers argued that the developers could not rely on the presumption because of the illegality of the agreement concerning the ding rights. This failed since the case fell squarely within the approach laid down by the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan ([39] to [48]). The developers could rely on the presumption to establish their proprietary interest and had no need to plead the illegality.

There was some discussion as to whether the High Court of Australia’s approach to illegality in Nelson v Nelson was to be preferred to Tinsley. Anthony To J. considered that he was bound by several Court of Appeal decisions to accept that Tinsley was the approach taken in Hong Kong. It would be for the Court of Final Appeal to reconsider this if asked to do so in some later proceedings ([45]).

Michael Lower

In Szeto Chak Mei v Chan Lam Shan ([2016] HKEC 482) P was the adminstratrix of her deceased father’s estate. The estate included a flat in which D1, the deceased’s daughter-in-law had lived for many years (since her marriage to one of the deceased’s sons). P alleged that D1 was a bare licensee of the flat. She terminated the licence and sought an order for vacant possession when D1 continued in possession. D1 claimed that the deceased and (after his death) the deceased’s wife had made representations to her that the title to the flat would be transferred to her. Deputy Judge Cooney SC referred to Yung Shu Wu v Vivienne Sung Wu ((2011) 14 HKCFAR 39): since D1 was alleging a gift or a promise of a gift by a person who was deceased at the time of trial, the claim should be treated with suspicion ([43]). D1 had not persuaded the court that the representation had been made and the proprietary estoppel claim failed.

Michael Lower

In Pankhania v Chandegra ([2012] EWCA Civ 1438, CA (Eng)) title to a house was transferred into the joint names of P and C (an aunt and nephew). The transfer contained an express declaration of trust that P and C were equitable tenants in common in equal shares. P sought an order for sale and an equal share of the net proceeds. C claimed that there was, at the time of the acquisition, a common intention that she was to be the sole beneficial owner. C succeeded at first instance but P’s appeal was successful.

The express declaration was conclusive (Goodman v Gallant; Pettitt v Pettitt) in the absence of a vitiating factor such as fraud or mistake. If the express declaration did not reflect the parties’ subjective intentions, either of them could apply for rectification but that had not been done. Further, the fact that the express declaration may not have reflected subjective intentions was not enough to render the declaration a sham. There was no attempt to deceive any third party; the arrangements between the co-owners were a matter of indifference to the mortgage lender.

Michael Lower

In Wong Yuk Ying v Chan Pui Shan May ([2016] HKEC 537, CA) S1 agreed to sell a workshop to S2. S2 entered into a sub-sale agreement with P. The workshop was divided into three units and each unit was subject to a separate tenancy. Details of the tenancies were contained in the sale and purchase agreements (both the head contract and the sub-sale). Two of the tenancies would determine by effluxion of time by the time of the completion date, the third would not. The tenants of the units whose leases expired did not vacate the property at the end of the term and were still in possession at the completion date specified in the sale and purchase agreements. P argued that the failure to give vacant possession on completion amounted to a failure to give good title and sought a declaration that S2 was in breach of contract and the return of the deposit paid to S2.

S2 argued that there was no express or implied term to the effect that sale was with vacant possession. Yuen JA disagreed: there is an implied term that sale is with vacant possession in the absence of agreement to the contrary ([22.1]). The fact that the sale was subject to and with the benefit of the tenancies did not amount to an expression of a contrary intention given that the tenancies would have expired by the completion date. In the absence of a contrary intention, the seller bore the risk that the tenants would remain in possession at the end of their leases ([30]); P’s knowledge of the existence of the tenancies and that the tenants might not vacate did not mean that there was any such contrary intention.

Michael Lower

方燕卿 v 方坤培 ([2016] HKEC 740, CFI) concerned an oral agreement by a brother to sell a flat to his sister. The sister drafted a memorandum of the terms of the agreement and the brother signed it. The brother later refused to complete and the sister sought specific performance. One aspect of the brother’s defence was that, following the Court of Final Appeal decision in Kwan Siu Man v Yaacov Ozer, there could be no contract where there was no express agreement as to the completion date. To J. rejected this interpretation of Kwan Siu Man. It is legally possible to enter into an open contract but the courts should not be too ready to find that this has occurred in the context of Hong Kong’s volatile property market. ‘In my opinion, the test is one of intention, i.e. have the parties reached a binding contract for the sale and purchase of that property at that price. If they have, then the other terms can be implied.’ ([79]). Here there was ample evidence that the parties had the necessary intention to be contractually bound.

Although no completion date was specified, the parties had agreed that completion would not take place until after their mother had died (the brother was joint tenant of the flat with the mother). It was to be implied that completion would take place at a reasonable time after the mother’s death. If completion does not take place within that time, the innocent party could issue a notice fixing a new completion date and making time of the essence ([80] referring to Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd and Lau Suk Ching Peggy v Ma Hing Lam). This was not void for uncertainty since it was certain that the mother would die even though the date of death could not be known ([83]).

The memorandum not only recorded the terms of the oral agreement but also the fact that the sister had paid the agreed deposit under the agreement. This did not mean that it was invalid as a memorandum. This was not a case where additional terms had been included in the memorandum casting doubt on whether it was truly intended to record the existence of an alleged oral agreement ([95]).

The oral agreement had been formed and the memorandum recorded it. The memorandum could even be considered as a written agreement. Specific performance was ordered.

Michael Lower