Weekly review: 22 – 26 August

Assignments: effect on assignors and assignees

Three of this week’s posts looked at the impact of an assignment of a lease or the reversion. As far as assignments of the reversion are concerned, section 31 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance passes the ability to enforce tenant’s covenants to assignees. This includes the right to bring proceedings in respect of breaches that occurred before the assignment. After the assignment, the assignor of the reversion can no longer enforce the tenant’s covenants and loses even the right to bring proceedings in respect of breaches that occurred before the assignment (Re King). Section 31 even applies to the obligations of tenants contained in written agreements for lease not under seal (Rye v Purcell). Assignees of the lease are only liable for breaches that occurred while the lease was vested in them; they cease to be liable for breaches that occur after an assignment of the lease (unless they contractually agree to be liable for such breaches) (Johnsey Estates Ltd v Lewis and Manley (Engineering) Ltd).

Common intention constructive trust: the Stack presumption and investment property

Stack’s presumption of equality in joint name cases doesn’t apply to investment property (Laskar v Laskar).

Co-ownership: order for sale

A co-owner can apply for an order for sale under section 6 of the Partition Ordinance. An attempt to resist such an order on the basis of a sentimental attachment to the property failed in Ip Fung Ying v Cheng Chi Chung.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: