XN000022-1988-06-01 — Page 7

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