Weekly review: 28th May – 1st June 2012

Adverse possession

The fact that A is given certain easements over B’s land does not mean that A’s occupation of B’s land cannot amount to adverse possession where it is more extensive than the use permitted as a result of the easements (Ng Tsorng Chinn v Vijaykumar Nanalal Shah).

Building Management Ordinance: Deed of Mutual Covenant: Incorporated owners

It is not enough for the management to act honestly when calculating owners’ liability to pay a management charge; liability is to be determined in accordance with the Deed of Mutual Covenant and the Building Management Ordinance (Greenwood Terrace (IO) v U-Teck Limited).


Potential purchasers should be very wary about signing a provisional sale and purchase agreement and deposit cheque simply to show sincerity; there is a danger that they will be bound by the contract and be held to have delivered the cheque unconditionally to the seller. It is possible to avoid this outcome through the use of a suitable written document explaining that the buyer does not intend to be bound nor to deliver the cheque but great care is needed (Phoneyork Co Ltd v Chesson International (Holdings) Ltd).


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: