ASIA RICH INCORPORATION LTD v. CHIN HUNG

HCMP 1995/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1995 OF 2018

____________

_____________

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Introduction

1.  This is a vendor and purchaser summons taken out by the plaintiff (“Purchaser”) against the defendant (“Vendor”) for a declaration that good title has not been shown by the Vendor.  In gist, there was discrepancy in the name of 2 Mr Lams, a predecessor-in-title of the Vendor.  There were further discrepancies in the identification documents that were used to identify the 2 Mr Lams in various title documents. The sole issue is whether or not there is sufficient proof of identity of the 2 Mr Lams.

Undisputed facts

2.  The property in question is Flat D on the 6^th Floor of Hankow Apartments, Nos 43, 45, 47, 47A, 49 and 49A, Hankow Road, Kowloon (“the Property”).

3.  By an assignment dated 30 May 1964 (“the 1964 Assignment”), the Property was acquired by one Lam Wai Ming. 

4.  By another assignment dated 7 May 2003 (“the 2003 Assignment”), the Property was sold by Hayashi Soki also known as Lam Wai Ming (林維明) (“HS”) to the Vendor.

5.  The Vendor and the Purchaser entered into a provisional sale and purchase agreement dated 27 November 2017, followed by a formal agreement dated 28 December 2017 (“the SPA”).

6.  The only outstanding requisition is whether or not Lam Wai Ming (林維明) under the 1964 Assignment and HS under the 2003 Assignment referred to one and the same person (“the Identity Issue”).

7.  The Identity Issue arose out of 4 documents supplied by the Vendor to the Purchaser’s solicitors:

(1)   The 1964 Assignment in which it was stated that the Property was assigned to Lam Wai Ming (林維明). According to the execution clause, both the vendor and Lam Wai Ming signed before a solicitor.  Whilst the vendor was expressly stated to have been identified by his HKID card, Lam Wai Ming was not identified with reference to any identification document.

(2)   The statutory declaration dated 24 January 2002 (“the 2002 SD”) in which the maker, a Mr Hayashi Soki with an address in Japan, declared before a solicitor of Francis Kong & Co, with the aid of a Cantonese interpreter, that:

(a)   He was formerly known as and identified by the name of “Lam Wai Ming (林維明)” in the 1964 Assignment;

(b)   He was the holder of Japanese passport no. TF7xxxxxx (“the Japanese Passport”);

(c)  Both names belonged to him and they identified one and the same person, ie himself;

(d)   The 2002 SD was prepared with the Property in the title by Sung & Co (which no longer exists). 

(3)   The Power of Attorney dated 26 March 2003 by HS, as donor, in favour of one Mikako Arai as attorney (“the 2003 PA”), in which:

(a)   It was recited that the maker was HS (Holder of [the Japanese Passport] and a Hong Kong Identity Card No starting with E7 (“the E7/IDC”);

(b)   Although the execution clause contained the words “SIGNED SEALED and DELIVERED by the said [HS] (he having been identified by the production of [the Japanese Passport] and [the E7/IDC]) in the presence of: –”, the execution clause was not in fact signed by any attesting witness or solicitor at all;

(c)  It was not clear whether the 2003 PA was actually signed by the donor, but there was attached to the 2003 PA a notarial certificate (apostillized) by a notary in Tokyo, stating that a “Soki Hayashi” had stated before the notary that the signature on the 2003 PA was his own. However, it was not clear from the notarial certificate how the donor Soki Hayashi was identified by the notary, for example, by the Japanese Passport or his E7/IDC.

(d)   According to the backsheet, the 2003 PA was prepared by Cham & Co.

(4)   The 2003 Assignment, in which:

(a)   The Vendor was then the assignee;

(b)   Like the 2003 PA, the assignor was described to be “[HS] holder of [the Japanese Passport] and [the E7/IDC]”;

(c)  The execution clause showed that HS did not personally sign the 2003 Assignment (and hence was not identified by anyone). Rather, it was Mikako Arai, the attorney, who signed the 2003 Assignment;

(d)   There was an apostillized notarial certificate by a notary in Japan, Mr Katsutoshi Suzuki, stating that Mikako Arai had stated before him that the signature on the 2003 Assignment was hers; and

(e)  According to the backsheet, the 2003 Assignment was prepared by Ford, Kwan & Co.

8.  The initial requisition was that there was no documentary proof of the change of name from Lam Wai Ming to HS.  Hayashi Soki was not identified in the 2003 Assignment, as only Mikako Arai purported to execute that Assignment as his attorney.

9.  The Identity Issue took another twist on 12 February 2018 when enquiries of the Purchaser’s solicitors with the Immigration Department revealed that the E7/IDC did not relate to the name Lam Wai Ming.  Further requests by the Purchaser’s solicitors on the matter were not met by the Immigration Department for lack of consent from the data subject.

Vendor’s attempts to resolve the Identity Issue

10.  In an attempt to resolve the Identity Issue, the Vendor’s solicitors have produced 3 sets of evidence:

(i)  2 statutory declarations;

(ii)   results of further enquiries with the Immigration Department; and

(iii)   the transaction history of another property in the Far East Mansion involving the same owner Lam Wai Ming (林維明) and resale by HS through his attorney appointed under another power of attorney.

11.  The first statutory declaration was made by Mr Cham Yiu Keung of Cham & Co dated 18 May 2018 (“Mr Cham’s SD”).  Mr Cham confirmed that his firm was instructed to prepare the 2003 PA for the sale of the Property (through an attorney, Mikako Arai).  The E7/IDC stated in the 2003 PA did not belong to Mr Hayashi but was mistakenly copied from the HKID Card of one Lui. Although the original file was lost, a Property Tax Surcharge Notice issued by the Inland Revenue Department to Lam Wai Ming (林維明) on 20 December 2002 could be retrieved.  That Notice was sent to the address of the Property.  As IRD used the HKID Card number of a taxpayer as the last digits of the file number, Lam Wai Ming (林維明)’s HKID Card number was one starting with “E1”.

12.  The second statutory declaration was made by Hayashi Yoneko dated 29 June 2018 (“Mrs Hayashi’s SD”).  She stated on oath that:

(1)   She was married to Mr Hayashi on 5 July 1963 and is his widow. 

(2)   She produced his Japanese Passport with the number TF7xxxxxx and the full name Hayashi Soki.  She stated that in Japanese Kanji character, his name was 林相輝.  She confirmed that, in the 2002 SD, Hayashi Soki was one and the same person as Lam Wai Ming. 

(3)   She confirmed that Mr Hayashi was a resident of Hong Kong and used the name of Lam Wai Ming with the HKID card no starting with E1 but a copy of his HKID card could not be found. 

(4)   The Property was assigned to Mr Hayashi Soki pursuant to the 1964 Assignment in his former name of Lam Wai Ming (林維明).

(5)   As his wife for over 40 years, Mrs Hayashi further confirmed that the signatures appearing on the 1964 Assignment and 2002 SD were those of Mr Hayashi Soki.

(6)   Mr Hayashi passed away on 19 May 2004.

13.  Further enquires were made with the Immigration Department.  On 2 August 2018, the Purchaser’s solicitors asked the Immigration Department whether the HKID card no. starting with E1 corresponded to the name of Lam Wai Ming (林維明).  The Immigration Department refused to answer based on privacy reasons.

14.  In about September 2018, the Vendor’s solicitors, acting on behalf of Mrs Hayashi, requested the Immigration Department for a Certificate of Registered Particulars in respect of Mr Hayashi Soki.  However, the application was unsuccessful for the reason, amongst others, that no supporting documents could be produced to answer the Immigration Department’s query as to whether 林相輝, Hayashi Soki and Lam Wai Ming (林維明) referred to the same person.

15.  In respect of the Far East Mansion Property at Flat E, 17^th Floor, Far East Mansion, Nos. 5-6 Middle Road, Kowloon,

(1)   By an assignment dated 30 May 1964 (the same date as the 1964 Assignment), the Far East Mansion Property was assigned in favour of Lam Wai Ming (林維明).  The address of Lam Wai Ming was No 16 Jordan Road, Third Floor, Kowloon (“the Jordan Address”) (same as in the 1964 Assignment).  That assignment was handled by Johnson, Stokes & Master under the same file number as that of the 1964 Assignment.

(2)   On the same date as the 2002 SD, Mr Hayashi Soki executed a power of attorney in favour of one Lui Chin Wang (雷展宏) whose HKID card was the E7/IDC, as donee for the purpose of dealing with the Property and the Far East Mansion Property (“the 2002 Lui PA”).

(3)   By an assignment dated 28 March 2002, pursuant to the 2002 Lui PA, LAM WAI MING (林維明) also known as HAYASHI SOKI (Holder of [the Japanese Passport]), sold the Far East Mansion Property as vendor to another purchaser.

16.  The Purchaser’s solicitors did not accept the evidence produced by the Vendor as adequate answers to the Identity Issue.

17.  Completion was due to take place on 13 February 2018 but, by mutual agreement, has been extended pending resolution of the present dispute.

The issue

18.  As agreed by counsel, the issue boils down to this: is there a real risk that Lam Wai Ming under the 1964 Assignment was not the same person as HS under the 2003 Assignment so that the former may have a subsisting claim against the Property and its successors-in-title?

Legal principles

19.  There is no dispute on legal principles.  Mr But, counsel for the Vendor, has summarized them as follows:

(1)   The duty to show and give good title is on the vendor.

(2)   The test as to whether ‘good title’ is given/shown by the vendor boils down to whether there is a real risk that a third party might assert some right over the property.

(3)   A ‘good title’ does not mean a ‘perfect title’ free from every possible blemish. A question as to whether ‘good title’ was given must be approached from the standpoint of a willing purchaser and a willing vendor, both possessed of reasonably robust common sense, both intending to see the transaction through to completion in terms of their own bargain.

(4)   The Court should be best guided by the commercial reality as to whether there is any real risk of problems in title. It is not to be troubled by the absence of an absolute risk-free assurance, nor unduly hampered by strict legal proof in matters requisitioned. Conveyancing practice must be geared to uphold bargains.

(5)   If there would be a real doubt arising about the title of a property, there should be satisfactory conveyancing evidence (such as a statutory declaration) to remove the doubt.

(6)   What is required to prove title in a given case must depend on the specific facts and circumstances and one must apply common sense.

See: Mexon Holdings Ltd v Silver Bay International Ltd (2000) 3 HKCFAR 109 at 117D-F (Litton PJ); So Mariko v Tse Chun Chung John [2011] 3 HKC 174; Zhang Xueshuai v Lai Chan Wing [2015] 2 HKLRD 246 at §31 (Cheung CJHC as he then was); and Kingdom Miles Ltd v Ever Crystal Ltd [2019] 1 HKLRD 643 at §§62-63, 66-72 (Lam VP).

20.  When a doubt is raised on the title but the facts and circumstances presented by the vendor “are so compelling that, beyond any reasonable doubt, the risk is, for all practical purposes, illusory, then the Court can and should be prepared to ignore it, and accordingly to dismiss any objection to title founded on it”.  The court can safely ignore any risk which is a “purely theoretical and not a practical blot” on the title: Qin Tian v 譚震, DCCJ 3712/2014, HH Judge Tsui,following Kan Wing Yau Anor v Hong Kong Housing Society, HCMP 2436/1987, 1 December 1987, Godfrey J at §9.

21.  The Court’s approach where the identity of a party named in title documents was in issue was helpfully set out in Qin Tian at §§64-77.  In gist:

(a)   Where a requisition is raised on the identity of a predecessor-in-title or the present owner of the property by reason of an apparent discrepancy in the title documents, the court should first determine whether the discrepancy in fact raises a reasonable doubt on the identity and if so the court should proceed to evaluate whether the answer and materials provided by the vendor amounts to “proper conveyancing evidence”; (§77)

(b)   On whether reasonable doubt is raised by reason of discrepancy:

(i)  There is no presumption that a discrepancy or mismatch necessarily gives rise to a reasonable doubt on the identity of the individual concerned.  Whether it does so or not must depend on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the discrepancy; (§64)

(ii)   Generally, there is an expectation that where a Hong Kong identity card was used as a means to identify an individual in a title document, that card number would not change in subsequent title documents.  It is premised on the general knowledge that Hong Kong identity card numbers follow the holders for life; (§70)

(c)  If the first question as to whether the discrepancy raises a reasonable doubt on the identity of the individual is answered in the affirmative, the burden is then on the vendor to produce “reasonable proof” on the identity.  The vendor does so by adducing “proper conveyancing evidence”; (§71)

(d)   Such evidence really means evidence strong and compelling enough to remove or dispel the doubt reasonably raised on the identity of the relevant individual; and (§73)

(e)  Mere “circumstantial evidence” or “pointers” are not enough, as explained by Godfrey J in Lam Kin I v Tsui Ming Yee, unrep, HCMP 361/1989 (24 February 1989) at pp 3-4:

“I have no doubt that the circumstantial evidence is a pointer to the conclusion that the two signatories are in fact that of the same person. But I am not satisfied that that is enough. A pointer is not evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient. Proper conveyancing evidence demands more than this. It demands something on the lines of the statutory declaration to which I have referred, or some other evidence which will satisfy this purchaser, and any purchaser from him, that the title is good one. While this circumstantial evidence may be enough to convince me, I cannot, objectively speaking, take the view that it would be unreasonable for this or a subsequent purchaser to suggest that it is simply not enough. I am not entitled to force a doubtful title upon the purchaser.”

22.  Identical names in title documents are insufficient as it is not rare for Chinese persons to have identical names in both Chinese and English.  Nor is it sufficient to point to the fact that in all subsequent documents the vendor was properly identified by her HKID card and that her signatures were properly attested by solicitors, as this may not answer whether the 2 persons in a power of attorney and an assignment were the same person.  Different persons may be in charge of different attestation processes in the different documents.  Those persons may not be able to confirm that the person before him or her was also the same person mentioned in the other documents: Liu Moon Ping v Wong Kwok Tung & ors [2006] 1 HKLRD 358, §124, Deputy District Judge Kwok.

23.  There is a rebuttal presumption under section 13(4) CPO for the deemed truth of contents of “declarations” which are more than 15 years old:

“(4) A recital, statement, and description of any fact, matter or party contained in any document of title, mortgage, declaration or power of attorney relating to any land and dated or made not less than 15 years before the contract of sale of that land shall, for the purposes of any question as to proof of title concerning the parties to that contract and unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence of the truth of that recital, statement and description.” (underline added)

A reasonable doubt as to title

24.  It cannot be disputed that a reasonable doubt has been raised by the Identity Issue.  Lam Wai Ming in the 1964 Assignment had not been identified by documentary evidence but only by the Jordan Address.

25.  Lam Wai Ming in the 2003 Assignment was identified by different indicia of identity, ie his alias Hayashi Soki, a Japanese Passport, the E7/IDC and an address in Tokyo.  This 2003 Assignment was executed by an attorney so Lam Wai Ming was not identified by a solicitor at all.

The 2002 SD

26.  Mr Kwong, counsel for the Purchaser, submits that the 2002 SD was deficient in that though it was made before a solicitor in Hong Kong, the maker of the 2002 SD did not say he was and the solicitor did not identify the maker to be the holder of the E7/IDC, any HKID Card, or even the Japanese Passport.

27.  Further, he submits that whilst the 2002 SD could show that the maker was the Lam Wai Ming in the 1964 Assignment, it did not show beyond reasonable doubt that HS in the 2003 Assignment was the same person.  It was also not clear that by saying that he was “formerly” known as Lam Wai Ming, the maker was saying that he had already changed his name to Hayashi Soki so that Lam Wai Ming was no longer used.  The Japanese Passport did not contain the words Lam Wai Ming or 林維明.  To add to the confusion, the holder of the Japanese Passport signed in the name of 林相輝.

28.  However, the 2002 SD, was direct evidence from Hayashi Soki himself. The title to this document was with reference to the Property. 

29.  The existence of the Japanese Passport and identity of Hayashi Soki were proved by Mrs Hayashi. 

30.  That 林相輝 was Hayashi Soki was proved by the notarial certificate attached to the 2003 PA and Mrs Hayashi’s SD.

31.  The 2002 SD, which was executed on 24 January 2002, had existed for more than 15 years up to the SPA dated 28 December 2017.  Section 13(4) CPO gives rise to a rebuttable presumption as to the truth of the matters stated in the 2002 SD and that presumption was not contradicted by other evidence.

32.  Whether the maker of the 2002 SD had ceased using the name of Lam Wai Ming was irrelevant.  The important thing for conveyancing purpose was that Lam Wai Ming and Hayashi Soki were proved, in my view, beyond reasonable doubt, to be one and the same person. 

The 2003 PA, 2003 Assignment and Mr Cham’s SD

33.  The indicia of identity in the 2003 PA was exactly the same as in the 2003 Assignment, except that Lam Wai Ming’s signature appeared only in the 2003 PA.

34.  The 2003 PA had 3 problems:

(1)   It made reference to HS’ Japanese Passport number but wrongly referred to Lui’s E7/IDC number as HS’.

(2)   Whist the 2003 PA appeared to have been prepared by Cham & Co, it was not executed before a solicitor in Hong Kong.

(3)   Although the signature of the maker was acknowledged by a Soki Hayashi before a Japanese notary, the notarial certificate did not state that Soki Hayashi had been identified by the Japanese Passport or the (wrong) E7/IDC.

35.  With regard to the first problem, Mr Cham did not have personal knowledge of the identity of Lam Wai Ming under the 1964 Assignment, the donor under the 2003 PA and/or the vendor under the 2003 Assignment, as none of those documents were attested by him: Liu Moon Ping. 

36.  The 2003 PA was not prepared by Mr Cham but a clerk of Cham & Co. Mr Cham did not produce the E7/IDC copy nor asserted that he had previously identified the donor by any identification document.

37.  I do not regard the wrong reference to the E7/IDC number to be material in this case because:

(a)   Mr Cham’s averment that a wrong HKID Card number was attributed to Lam Wai Ming because of his clerk’s error was credible.  Lui’s E7/IDC number was referred to in the assignment of the Far East Mansion Property by Lam Wai Ming with Lui acting as his attorney.  Lui was stated to have been identified by production of the E7/IDC in the presence of a clerk to Sung & Co.  It was an independent transaction in which Cham & Co was not involved.

(b)   Further, Mr Cham’s averment that the correct HKID Card number of Lam Wai Ming started with E1 was also credible having regard to the Property Tax Assessment addressed to Lam Wai Ming at the address of the Property.

(c)  The 1964 Assignment did not identify Lam Wai Ming by a HKID Card.  There was no legal requirement that a title holder must identify himself by a HKID Card.  He could rely on a foreign passport instead, which Lam Wai Ming did in the subsequent 2002 SD.

38.  Mr Kwong submits that whilst Mr Cham has purportedly explained the wrong HKID Card number on the 2003 PA, he has not given a similar explanation with regard to the wrong HKID Card number on the 2003 Assignment.

39.  With respect, I see nothing sinister in that.  If Lui’s E7/IDC number had wrongly appeared on the 2003 PA, it went without saying that the same E7/IDC number on the 2003 Assignment was Lui’s and not Lam Wai Ming’s.

40.  With regard to the second problem, apparently Hayashi Soki signed the 2003 PA and identified his signature to the notary.  That was why the notary instead of a Hong Kong solicitor was the witness.  It did not matter that the signatures of Hayashi Soki and the notary appeared on different pages.

41.  With regard to the third problem, the signature page of Hayashi Soki contained the remark that HS had been identified by the production of his Japanese Passport.  However, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether that identification had actually taken place because if it had, the error as to his HKID Card number would have been exposed then.  The third problem remains a problem.

Mrs Hayashi’s SD

42.  Mrs Hayashi’s SD is, in my view, weighty evidence.  Her SD contained matters within her personal knowledge and she was the wife of Mr Hayashi for over 40 years. Her evidence was supported by documents (except there was no HKID Card copy).  The SD was translated from Japanese, notarized and apostillized.  Most important of all, there was no cause for Mrs Hayashi to lie as she has no interest in the present transaction.

43.  Based on what she declared, there is sufficient proof that Mr Hayashi and Lam Wai Ming were one and the same person.  This would have confirmed the truth of the 2002 SD.

44.  Mrs Hayashi’s SD did not confirm that the donor of the 2003 PA and assignor of the 2003 Assignment was her husband.  However, the 2002 PA referred to the Property in its title and the 1964 Assignment in its body.  It would be fanciful to suggest that Mrs Hayashi failed to make a claim if she considered that her husband’s estate retained an interest in the Property.

Transactions in respect of the Far East Mansion Property

45.  The transactions in respect of the Far East Mansion Property bore great similarity to the 1964 Assignment and 2003 Assignment.

(1)   The Far East Mansion Property was also assigned to Lam Wai Ming as a purchaser in 1964 (“the FEM 1964 Assignment”) without his being identified by an identity document.  The 2002 Far East Mansion Property SPA and Assignment recited the vendor to be Lam Wai Ming also known as Hayashi Soki, who was not identified, as those documents were executed by the attorney Lui only.  The Japanese Passport number of the vendor was only recorded in the 2002 Far East Mansion Property SPA but not the Assignment.

(2)   The FEM 1964 Assignment and the 1964 Assignment were both handled by Johnson Stokes & Master under the same file number.

(3)   The Lam Wai Ming under both the 1964 Assignment and FEM 1964 Assignment were identified by the Jordan Address. 

(4)   The Far East Mansion Property 2002 SPA and the related Assignment featured the vendor as “Lam Wai Ming (林維明) also known as Hayashi Soki of [address of the Property], Holder of [the Japanese Passport]”.  This completely coincided with the description of the Lam Wai Ming and Hayashi Soki in the 2002 SD and 2003 Assignment.

(5)   The sale of the Far East Mansion Property was conducted by solicitors for Lui, the attorney acting for Hayashi Soki.

(6)   The 2002 Lui PA authorized the same attorney, Lui, to deal with both the Far East Mansion Property and the Property, suggesting that both properties belonged to the same person, ie Hayashi Soki.

(7)   Both the 2002 Lui PA and 2002 SD were prepared by the same firm of solicitors, Sung & Co, for Mr Hayashi Soki’s execution on the same date. 

46.  Mr Kwong submits that the Far East Mansion Property transactions did not supply the missing link between the 1964 Assignment and 2003 Assignment in respect of the Property. 

47.  That may well be true.  However, the similar features between the Property and the Far East Mansion Property were more than coincidences. Although the conveyancing documents in respect of the Far East Mansion Property do not constitute “proper conveyancing evidence” in respect of the Property, the former do constitute strong circumstantial evidence in support of the description of identity of Lam Wai Ming in the latter.

The evidence in its totality

48.  Taking an overall view of all the evidence before the court, the presumption under s.13(4) CPO and Mrs Hayashi’s SD put beyond doubt that Lam Wai Ming under the 1964 Assignment and HS under the 2003 Assignment were one and the same person.  林維明and 林相輝 also referred to the same person.

49.  There is no dispute that the title deeds delivered by the Vendor to the Purchaser’s solicitors were originals and the is no question of missing title deeds.  If Hayashi Soki were a different person from Lam Wai Ming, he would hardly have possessed the title deeds for 39 years before execution of the 2003 Assignment and passed those title deeds together with vacant possession of the Property to the Vendor. 

50.  Together with the next 14 years of ownership by the Vendor up to the subject SPA, no one has appeared to assert any right over the Property, whether in the capacity of Lam Wai Ming (林維明) or Hayashi Soki (林相輝).  Although she made no reference to the 2003 PA and 2003 Assignment, Mrs Hayashi made no claim against the Property but voluntarily made her SD.

51.  Similarly, the Far East Mansion Property had been mortgaged and/or resold many times after 2002 without problem on title.

52.  Applying the test of a willing vendor and purchaser with reasonably robust common sense, there is no real risk of a Lam Wai Ming or HS or his successor-in-title having a subsisting claim against the Property. 

Order

53.  The Vendor having shown good title, I make an order that there be:

(1)   A declaration that the requisition numbered “4. & 1(j)” in the letter dated 18 January 2018 from Messrs Iu, Lai & Li, solicitors for the plaintiff, to Messrs V. Hau & Chow, solicitors for the defendant, in respect of the title to the Property has been satisfactorily answered by the defendant; and

(2)   A declaration that good title to the Property has been proved and/or given by the defendant in accordance with the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the Property dated 28 December 2018 made between the defendant as the Vendor and the plaintiff as the Purchaser.

54.  Counsel are agreed that regardless of the outcome of this case, there should be no order as to costs.  I make an order accordingly.

55.  I thank Mr Jeremy Kwong and Mr Adrian But for their succinct and very helpful submissions.