So said G Lam JA in the recent Court of Appeal (CA) judgment in 

 [2025] HKCA 675. The judgment provides significant new guidance on the 

 leases, statutory extension of government leases, and registration of leases.

In 1983, the owner of a New Territories government lease granted Mr To a written, unregistered sub-lease for 15 years. The head lease, a Crown lease, was set to expire in 1997. Three years later, the owner assigned the land to herself and her adopted son as joint tenants. In 1988, legislation extended New Territories government leases to 2047. After the owner died in 1990, her adopted son sold the land to a company, which then subdivided and sold parcels to various purchasers (the Registered Owners), each of whom registered their assignments. The land continued to be occupied by Mr To (or his successors), leading to competing claims of title and possession.

The CA affirmed the DHCJ Alexander Stock SC’s decision below on three main grounds.

 rule was affirmed: where a sub-lease is granted for a term equal to or longer than the head lease, it operates as an assignment of the entire leasehold interest, not a sub-lease. As such, the 1983 agreement, being for a term exceeding the remainder of the government lease, assigned the government lease to Mr To. The controversial decision in 

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust

 [2000] 1 AC 406, which held that a person without any proprietary interest in the land can nevertheless create a tenancy in favour of another, did not undermine 

2. The statutory extension of government leases under the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance simply extended 

 leases; it did not change the identity of the leaseholder. As Mr To was the leaseholder by virtue of the 1983 assignment, he – and not the original owner or her adopted son – was entitled to the benefit of the extension to 2047.

”, the 1983 lease/assignment was never registered. So it was null and void as against subsequent bona fide purchasers for value who registered their interests. Under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Ordinance, the Registered Owners took good title, free and clear of Mr To’s unregistered claim.

, instructed by Wong, Hui & Co, assigned by DLA, acted for the 8

 Defendant (by Counterclaim) in the appeal but not below.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

This Is One of Those Cases Where One May Be Forgiven for Wondering Whether The Facts Have Been Ingeniously Designed for The Purpose of Raising Nice Questions of Law…

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New