In Splendid Resources Inc v Secretary for Justice ( HKEC 504) the plaintiffs had constructed columbaria on land owned by them. The Government contended that this was a breach of the terms of the Government lease.
The lease did not contain an express covenant not to use the land for any purposes other than as agricultural land. It had, however, been sold as ‘agricultural land’. The question was whether this was purely descriptive of the use at the time of sale or implied a covenant only to use the land for this purpose.
Deputy Judge Le Pichon pointed to various features of the New Grant that could only be explained on the basis that the words imposed a restriction on the use to which the property could be put. These included a provision requiring the land to be cultivated.
The judge referred (at ) to a statement in Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong that ‘[w]ithout special permission from the Government, all Government leases granted in the New Territories are for agricultural purpose and can not be used for other profitable purposes.’
Further, ‘where an interpretative ambiguity arises in the context of a Government lease, a presumption in favour of the Government applies’ (at ).
The landowner’s argument that the covenant was purely personal to the original lessee was also rejected.
Finally, Deputy Judge Le Pichon held that the columbarium was a structure; it was a breach of the covenant not to build any structure on the land.