RE LEUNG KWAI MAN alias LEUNG MAN

HCMP 3193/2014

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3193 OF 2014

_______________

_______________

_______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N
___________________

1.  In this action, commenced by the applicant by way of an ex parts originating summons dated 8 December 2014, the applicant seeks (inter alia) a vesting order in respect of the landed properties known as The Remaining Portion of Lot No 736 and The Remaining Portion of Lot No 737 both in Demarcation District No 8, Tai Po, New Territories (“the Properties”).

2.  The Properties are currently registered in the Land Registry in the name of Leung Chung Yu (as Trustee) for Leung Man (as beneficiary).

3.  According to the applicant:-

(1) The former owner of Lot No 736 and Lot No 737 in Demarcation District No 8, Tai Po, New Territories (“the Original Lots”) was his father, Leung Shek Lun, who passed away in 1949.

(2) Upon the death of the applicant’s father, Leung Chung Yu (as Trustee) for Leung Man (as beneficiary), the latter being a reference to the applicant, became the registered owner of the Original Lots by succession.

(3) The Trustee, Leung Chung Yu, also known as Leung Mau (or Mou) Cheong (or Cheung), was the applicant’s uncle.

(4) The applicant was told by Leung Yiu Wing, a son of the Trustee, that the Trustee passed away in about 1953 or 1954 at Tai Kei Ling, Yuen Long, New Territories.

(5) Despite searches carried out at the Births & Deaths Registry, no information relating to the death of the Trustee could be found, and no death certificate of the Trustee could be obtained.

(6) In or about 2003, portions of the Original Lots reverted to the Government by way of resumption, and Leung Chung Yu (as Trustee) for Leung Man (as beneficiary) has been the registered owner of the remaining portions (ie the Properties) since that time.

4.  That Leung Man and Leung Kwai Man refer to one and the same person, ie the applicant, is supported not only by an affirmation made by the applicant on 5 December 2014, but also (i) an affirmation made by Leung For Wing alias Leung Tai Wing on 6 October 2015, who has confirmed that he was the Trustee’s son and is the applicant’s cousin, and (ii) a statutory declaration made by the applicant on 6 September 1996 executed in connection with the aforesaid resumption of portions of the Original Lots by the Government.

5.  Leung For Wing alias Leung Tai Wing has also confirmed in his said affirmation that (i) his father (ie the Trustee) passed away in around 1952; (ii) his father was originally buried in Tai Kei Lung, Yuen Long, New Territories, and (iii) his father’s relics were later removed and buried in Leung Shan, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po, New Territories.

6.  In support of the applicant’s case that he is, and at all material times was, the beneficial owner of the Properties, the applicant has produced (i) various Government rent receipts relating to the Original Lots or the Properties in respect of rents paid by the applicant, (ii) an acceptance letter to the District Lands Office/Tai Po signed by Leung Kwai Man dated 20 May 2003 accepting an offer of compensation for resumption of portions of the Original Lots, (iii) an indemnity letter to the Director of Lands signed by Leung Kwai Man dated 17 September 2003 apparently because he could not surrender some missing title deeds in respect of the Original Lots, and (iv) an old mortgage of the Original Lots executed by Leung Shek Lun dated 3 June 1948 which the applicant says was left by his father.

7.  On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the condition for making a vesting order of the Properties under section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29, is satisfied, and that the applicant is beneficially entitled to the Properties.  Also, on the facts of the present case, I consider that it would be appropriate to permit this application to be made on an ex parte basis without appointing anyone as the personal representatives of the Trustee (see the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Wilson Chan in Re Pacific Good Investment Limited, HCMP 366/2014 (5 March 2014), and the cases referred to in paragraph 14 of that decision).

8.  Accordingly, I make an order in terms of paragraph 2 of the originating summons, with no order as to costs.