6
ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1988.
CONVEYANCING LAW FURTHER IMPROVED
THE CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL INCORPORATED A NUMBER OF USEFUL PROPOSALS TO FURTHER IMPROVE RELATING TO CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY IN HONG KONG,
1987
HAS
THE LAW
HOC GROUP THIS IN THE
THE HON PETER C. WONG, THE CONVENER OF THE LEGCO AD
THE STUDY
PROVISIONS
THE OF
BILL, SAID FORMED TO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
WITH
GROUP THE
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, MR WONG SAID THE AD HOC
SEVEN TIMES AND HAD HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS
HAD MET ADMINISTRATION.
AS A RESULT, A NUMBER OF USEFUL AND BEEN AGREED ON.
PRACTICAL AMENDMENTS HAD
VENDOR TO
ONE SUCH AMENDMENT DEALT WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PRODUCE, IN ORDER TO PROVE HIS TITLE TO THE LAND BEING SOLD, THE CROWN
OF AT LEAST LEASE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR A PERIOD YEARS BEFORE THE CONTRACT FOR SALE.
25
OF
MR WONG SAID THAT UNDER CLAUSE 5(A) OF THE BILL, THE PERIOD 25 YEARS WOULD BE REDUCED TO 15 YEARS, AND THE REDUCTION WAS WELCOMED BY MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC GROUP AS WELL AS BY PRACTISING CONVEYANCERS.
AD HOO HOWEVER, THE
GROUP RECOMMENDED THAT THE STATUTORY
WHICH REMAINED AT LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ACTION TO RECOVER LAND, YEARS, SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 12 YEARS.
IIR SAID THAT THE
20
ADMINISTRATION WAS RECEPTIVE TO THIS SUGGESTION AND WAS CONSIDERING AMENDING THE LIMITATION ORDINANCE AS A MATTER OF PRIORITY.
IT MR WONG SAID THAT VENDORS HAD AT TIMES FOUND PRODUCE AN ORIGINAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WHERE THE POWER WAS CONSIDERABLE TIME BEFORE THE CONVEYANCING TRANSACTION.
DIFFICULT
GIVEN SOME
то
HE SAID THAT CLAUSE 5(C) AMENDED THE LAW SO THAT, UNLESS THE
THE VENDOR WAS ONLY CONTRARY INTENTION WAS EXPRESSED,
OBLIGED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WHERE IT
LESS WAS EXECUTED THAN 15 YEARS BEFORE THE CONTRACT FOR SALE.
ACHIEVE
THE
THAT
THE
WAS
AS HE ALSO NOTED THAT,
CLAUSE 5(C) MIGHT NOT
BE AMENDED FURTHER 90 DESIRED EFFECT, IT WOULD THEREFORE PRESUMPTION THAT' A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS VALIDLY EXECUTED CONCLUSIVE.
WITH REGARD TO THE EXECUTION OF DEEDS, MR WONG SAID THAT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE GROUP THAT WITNESSING THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT AND THAT A DEED MIGHT BE SIGNED EITHER IN THE NAME OF A CORPORATION OR ITS AUTHORISED AGENT.
/FINALLY, HE