RE WONG FUK CHEUNG DAVID

HCMP 1919/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1919 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is an application for a vesting order under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29. 

2.  The applicant is one Wong Fuk-cheung David.  The property is section G of Lot number 256 in DD120 (the “Lot”).

3.  In October 1972, one Wong Wan‑chau and one Chau Kwai-lan purchased the Lot as joint tenants.  Chau Kwai-lan did so on the express basis that she was acting as trustee of the applicant.

4.  I should say that although the spelling of the applicant’s name appearing on the conveyancing documents is slightly different from his name appearing on his identity card, I am satisfied that the applicant is the same person who was the beneficiary for whom Chau Kwai-lan was holding her interest in the lot.

5.  This was indeed the effect of the statutory declaration dated 22 December 2017, registered in the Land Registry.

6.  At the time of the purchase of the land in October 1972, the applicant was a minor. He was 12 years old.  Wong Wan‑chau is the applicant’s cousin and Chau Kwai-lan was the applicant’s foster mother.  Chau Kwai-lan passed away on 3 January 2010 and no grant of probate has been obtained in respect of her estate. 

7.  On 22 December 2017, Wong Wan‑chau gave a Notice of Severance, severing the joint tenancy in respect to the Lot.  Accordingly, the Lot is now held under a tenancy in common with Wong Wan‑chau holding a half share and Chau Kwai-lan holding the other half share, on trust for the applicant.

8.  Section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance provides that the court can make a vesting order, and I quote, “Where there is no personal representative of the deceased’s trustee who was entitled to, or possessed of any interest in the land”, and so on.

9.  I am satisfied that in the present case, it is appropriate to make such a vesting order, and after discussion with Mr Ko, the applicant now seeks only paragraph 2 of the ex-parte originating summons, essentially to the effect that the legal estate held by Chau Kwai-lan be vested absolutely in the name of the applicant.

10.  I am satisfied that in the present circumstances there is no other person who ought to be served with this application and hence the present application is in order.

11.  I should also mention that there is an application to amend before me, making clear the full name of the applicant.  I am likewise satisfied that that application should be granted.

12.  So for these reasons, the first thing I formally do is to make an order in terms of the summons dated 15 November 2018.  An order in terms is fine, because it provides for costs already.

13.  I should then make an order in terms, in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended ex-parte originating summons.