SECRET
ANNEX A
Circumstances in which legislation to extend the validity of New Territories Crown Leases post-1997 might be challenged
(Note by the Acting Attorney General)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
11
'X" who is the holder of a new lease and has developed the land agrees to sell it for a large sum to "y". "Y" calls for a categorical assurance from his solicitor that the lease is valid. The solicitor is doubtful and there is a lot of money involved so he asks the Supreme Court for a declaration that the lease is valid.
Pursuing the above example, even if the purchaser's solicitors were sufficiently satisfied, a prospective mortgagee might not be. Mortgagees commonly require categorical assurances from their solicitors and this might induce a
cautionary application to the Supreme Court for a declaration.
It is possible that a company's auditor might query a valuation or re-valuation in a balance sheet of a property held under a new lease and take legal advice leading to a declaratory action designed to remove doubt.
In an estate duty context, dispute could arise about the valuation of new leases held by a deceased person. There is a statutory appeal to the Supreme Court.
་
'x" is the holder of a new lease and "y" either causes actionable damage to the property or occupies it without "x"'s permission.
"x" sues "y" who denies that "x" holds a valid lease. The validity of the lease is then directly in issue before the Court.
It is not very likely but it is possible that the validity of a new lease could be the subject of scrutiny in court proceedings resulting from lease enforcement, re-entry, or resumption.
Finally, one should perhaps not rule out completely an action initiated by a troublemaker or eccentric or a dissident designed to embarrass either the CPG or the Hong Kong Government. It would not be difficult for such a person to get a declaratory action before the Court.
SECRET
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.