DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD v. GUO JIANJUN AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1812/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1812 OF 2012

____________

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a provisional agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and the 1st defendant agreed to purchase the plaintiff’s premises in Shun Tak Centre, Sheung Wan as particularised in the originating summons.

2.  The 1st defendant later signed a nomination nominating the 2nd defendant to take up the purchase.

3.  The parties later had a dispute.  The defendants alleged that the plaintiff had failed to answer the requisitions on title satisfactorily and failed to prove a good title to the property.

4.  The defendants, by a letter of their solicitors dated 2 April 2012, purportedly accepted the plaintiff’s repudiation of the provisional agreement.

5.  The defendants’ solicitors then presented a copy of this letter to the Land Registry for registration against the plaintiff’s properties.  The memorial and the copy of the letter sent to the registry do not even mention the identity of the defendants. 

6.  The Land Registry stopped the registration of this letter but noted it under the heading of “deeds pending registration” in the register of the plaintiff’s properties.  This however is revealed to the public and would cause queries on the plaintiff’s title to the properties.

7.  The defendants have not done anything further after presenting this copy letter to the registry for registration.

8.  The plaintiff now applies for vacating this letter from the registry and the removal of any reference to it in the register of the plaintiff’s properties.

9.  I am of the view that this document does not create or affect any interest in the plaintiff’s properties and is not registrable at the Land Registry pursuant to the Land Registration Ordinance, Cap. 128 (see Thian’s Plastics Industrial Co Ltd & Ors v Tin’s Chemical Industrial Co Ltd & Anr [1917] HKLR 498 and Thian’s Plastic Industrial Co Ltd & Ors v Tin’s Chemical Industrial Co Ltd & Anr (No 2) [1971] HKLR 249).

10.  Despite the letter not being registered against the plaintiff’s properties, its presence under the heading of “deeds pending registration” causes unnecessary prejudice and nuisance to the plaintiff.  It should not have been sent to the registry for registration.  The attempt to do so is an abuse of the registration system.

11.  I would follow the decision of Deputy Judge Cheung (as he then was) in Wong Kum Chi v Lee Tit Ying [2003] 1 HKLRD 594 and order the removal of this letter from the registry and any reference of it under “deeds pending registration” and the register of the plaintiff’s property.  I also make an order in terms of the originating summons. 

12.  Finally, I order the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of these proceedings to be assessed by me summarily on the indemnity scale, and the plaintiff’s solicitors should prepare a bill of costs for my assessment within the next 7 days.