308
made, or hereafter to be made, on any claim in relation to land in the New Territories (other than a decision on a claim for compensation under Section 14 of the Principal Ordinance) in respect of which the Land Court shall certify that the value of the claim is over $5,000 or that there are special reasons why the case should be allowed to go to Appeal: such leave #may be granted whether the Crown was or was not represented before the said Land Court on the hearing of such claim, and pending such Appeal the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of any decision on any such claim so appealed from." Immediately after the passing of the said Ordinance, proceedings were taken by the Government to Appeal from the Judgment of the Land Court above mentioned, and on the 25th day of August the Attorney General applied to the Full Court and obtained leave to Appeal: the Respondents to such Appeal being the above mentioned original Claimants Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk.
23.
24.
It may be noted at this point that Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk had parted with all their interest in the said property, and therefore had no interest in the Appeal whatever, and that the only persons interested in the result of the Appeal were, on the one side, the Government, and on the other side, the said Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan as the then owners of the property.
25.
Accordingly on the 17th November 1903 the said Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan through their Solicitors, filed in the Supreme Court, a Motion asking that they should be added as Respondents to the said Appeal. On the 23rd November 1903 the said Motion came before the Supreme Court, Mr. M. W. Slade appeared as Counsel for Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan and the Attorney General and Mr. Sharp K.C. appeared for the Government. The request of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan to be added as parties to the Appeal was opposed by the Government and was refused by the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice Sir William M. Goodman and His Honour Mr. Justice Wise, Puisne Judge. The Chief Justice however in giving his decision said that he did not wish to preclude any claims which Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan might have upon the Government, but whatever happened in this case would not prevent them from taking action against the Government or anyone else they thought fit; and he declined at that stage to complicate the question they had to try as to whether the decision of the Land Court was a proper decision, by admitting them as Respondents.
26.
Your Petitioners submit that in giving this decision the Full Court lost sight of the fact that the nominal Respondents Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk had sold and parted with all their rights in respect of the land in question and had therefore no interest whatever in appearing and contesting the Appeal of the Crown. It would therefore appear that it was only the merest justice to allow Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, who were the only parties interested in the result, to appear and adduce whatever evidence and arguments were in their power in order to support the Judgment of the Land Court.
27.
The Full Court however were of a different opinion and the natural result followed. On the 4th day of January 1904 the Appeal came on for hearing. It was practically undefended. One of the clients, Lam Tak Luk, appeared in person, but no Counsel appeared for the Respondents and no evidence was filed by them in opposition to the evidence filed on behalf of the Crown. The Full Court gave Judgment, allowing the Appeal and reversing the decision of the Land Court. The main ground of the decision of the Full Court was that the Deed dated the 10th day of January 1883 under which the Plaintiffs claimed their rights to the said ground was a forgery. It was however apparently never brought to the attention of the Court that the said deed, which was alleged to be a forgery, had in fact been registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrates Yamen of the Sun On District. The said deed was an Assignment
-7-
308
*made, or hereafter to be made, on any claim in relation to land in the New Territories (other "than a decision on a claim for compensation under Section 14 of the Principal Ordinance) in "respect of which the Land Court shall certify that the value of the claim is over $5,000 or *that there are special reasons why the case should be allowed to go to Appeal: such leave #may be granted whether the Crown was or was not represented before the said Land Court on "the hearing of such claim, and pending such Appeal the Chief Justice may stay all proceedings *arising directly or indirectly out of any decision on any such claim so appealed from." Immediately after the passing of the said Ordinance,proceedings were taken by the Government to Appeal from the Judgment of the Land Court above mentioned, and on the 25th.day of August the Attor- ney General applied to the Full Court and obtained leave to Appeal: the Respondents to such Appeal being the above mentioned original Claimants Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk.
23.
24.
It may be noted at this point that Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Puk had parted with all their interest in the said property, and therefore had no interest in the Appeal whatever, and that the only persona interested in the result of the Appeal were, on the one side, the Government, and on the other side, the said Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan as the then owners of the property.
25.
Accordingly on the 17th.November 1903 the said Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan through their Solicitors, filed in the Supreme Court, a Motion asking that they should be added as Respondents to the said Appeal. On the 23rd November 1903 the said Motion came before the Supreme Court, Mr.M.W.Slade ap- peared as Counsel for Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan and the Attorney General and Mr.Sharp K.C.appeared for the Government. The request of Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan to be added as parties to the Appeal was opposed by the Government and was refused by the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice Bir William M.Goodman and His Honour Mr.Justice Wise,Puiane Judge. The Chief Justice however in giving his decision said that he did not wish to preclude any claims which Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan might have upon the Government, but whatever happened in this case would not prevent them from taking action against the Government or anyone else they thought fit; and he declined at that stage to complicate the question they had to try as to whether the decision of the Land Court was a proper decision, by admit- ting them as Respondents.
26.
Your Petitioners submit that in giving this decision the Full Court lost sight of the fact that the nominal Respondents Lam Tak Luk and Lam Cheung Fuk had sold and parted with all their rights in respect of the land in question and had therefore no interest whatever in appearing and contesting the Appeal of the Crown. It would therefore appear that it was only the merest justice to allow Tong Wan Chiu and Ku Fai Shan, who were the only parties interested in the result, to appear and adduce what- ever evidence and arguments were in their power in order to support the Judgment of the Land Court. 27.
The Full Court however were of a different opinion and the natural result followed.
On the 4th day of January 1904 the Appeal came on for hearing. It was practically undefended. One of the clients, Lam Tak Luk, appeared in person, but no Counsel appeared for the Respondents and no evidence was filed by them in opposition to the evidence filed on behalf of the Crown. The Full Court gave Judgment, allowing the Appeal and reversing the decision of the Land Court. The main ground of the decision of the full Court was that the Deed dated the 10th day of January 1883 under which the Plain- tiffs claimed their rights to the said ground was a forgery. It was however apparently never brought to the attention of the Court that the said deed, which was alleged to be a forgery, had in fact been registered in the Land Registry of the Magistrates Yamen of the Sun On Distriot. The said deed was an
Assignment
-7-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.