Weekly review: 12th – 16th December


A transaction entered into under duress is voidable (Mir Abdul Rehman v Mir Heena).


Where a tenant encroaches onto adjoining land of the landlord, he is rebuttably presumed to hold the property as an addition to the property covered by the lease. Once the limitation period has passed in respect of the area encroached upon, the landlord will be unable to recover possession of the area covered by the encroachment until the lease comes to an end. The fact that the relevant lease was renewed (and a fresh lease granted) pursuant to the New Territories (Renewable Government Leases) Ordinance (Cap. 152) has no impact on the operation of the doctrine of encroachment in relation to the land (Secretary for Justice v Chau Ka Chik Tso).


A ‘subject to contract’ agreement is not binding on the parties. The mere fact that someone has not done something that they could have done is not usually reliance enough for estoppel purposes (Derby & Co Ltd v ITC Pension Trust Ltd).


A licence is a purely personal arrangement and not a ‘dealing’ (Maharaj v Chand).


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: