Scribd
Upload
113 views2 pages

New SG5

The document discusses several scenarios related to executing assignments of property in Hong Kong and determining whether requisitions need to be raised. For an assignment executed more than 15 years ago, no requisitions are required under section 23A(2) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (CPO). For those executed less than 15 years ago, requisitions must be made under section 23A(1) CPO to provide evidence of due execution, including documents showing authorization of signatories. If the assignment contains a wrong company seal, a requisition is needed to request a confirmatory assignment from the correct company. For assignments after May 2003, requisitions seeking a board resolution may

Uploaded by

David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views2 pages

New SG5

The document discusses several scenarios related to executing assignments of property in Hong Kong and determining whether requisitions need to be raised. For an assignment executed more than 15 years ago, no requisitions are required under section 23A(2) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (CPO). For those executed less than 15 years ago, requisitions must be made under section 23A(1) CPO to provide evidence of due execution, including documents showing authorization of signatories. If the assignment contains a wrong company seal, a requisition is needed to request a confirmatory assignment from the correct company. For assignments after May 2003, requisitions seeking a board resolution may

Uploaded by

David
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Question 2 – Past Paper Sem A 2010/11 Requisition

 (B1) it is over 15 years so apply s.23A(2) CPO where there would be conclusive presumption so no
requisition is required
 (B2) not over 15 years so apply s.23A(1) CPO  must ask for requisitions from Vendor
o Must look at the AA
o Requisition must be made for the evidence of due execution which would include document
of AA of the company and if applicable, certified copy of Board Resolution authorizing
signatories to sign
 S.23A(1) does not cater for the number of person signing. If sealing provision
provides that 4 directors need to sign when the company seal is affixed and there are
only 3, in such case, we need board resolution to prove that appointing 3 people to
sign the assignment is sufficient.
 BD can cure the defects between the AA and the Deed itself
 Ying Ching v Air Sprung (Hong Kong) Limited
 (B3)  executed 9th May 2003 – NO requisitions raised
o We have Board Resolution so it can prove due execution
 (B4) 3 person executed the Assignment. If they were described as “directors”, by s.20(1) CPO 
deemed execution because 2 directors have signed so no need to raise requisitions

Question 3 – Question 10 of past resit Sem A 2006/07

a) The seal is wrong. “Love Red Ltd” but the vendor is called “Love Green Ltd”  raise requisition
because there is a wrong seal affixed to the assignment.
o Execution would be defective
o Because of the wrong seal, we need to ask for a Confirmatory assignment by Love Green Ltd.
o Apply s.23A(2) CPO because Assignment was dated 2nd June 1982 which is at least 15
years from sales and purchase contract.
o Vendor can either reseal or execute confirmatory assignment.

b) The Assignment was executed 17th May 2004 which is AFTER 9th May 2003 so s.23A(1) CPO is not
applicable. Further, Mary was not described as a “duly authorized” person so s.23 cannot be applied.
There is no deeming provision
o Ask for Board Resolution to prove due execution. Failure of which would cause a defect
in the title
o Li Ying Ching

c) S.23A(1) should be applied because it is executed before 9th May 2003 and although Mary Chan
could have been authorized by the Board of Directors

If Healthy Life Ltd was an overseas company:

1
o Sera Limited v Excelling Profit Investment Limited (1992): Court interpreted the phrase
“Corporation aggregate” includes foreign companies. Therefore,
o S.23, S.23A, and S.20(1) CPO would still be applicable to overseas company.

You might also like