LI TSE SHI Vs. PONG TSOI CHING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very peculiar case, depending in large measure on its very peculiar circumstances, which must first be stated. One, Li Woon Nam, died on 19 April, 1925 leaving his widow, Li Tse Shi (the appellant), and an adopted son, Li Kai Loy, him surviving. He was the owner of a Crown lease of certain premises (hereinafter referred to as the premises), 73, Bonham Strand West situate at Victoria in the colony of Hong Kong, which he had acquired from one Ng Yu Hon by an assignment dated 11 October 1924. His name appeared at his death as such owner in the Hong Kong Land Registry, the premises being then in the occupation of the said Ng Yu Hon as sub-lessee.

(2.) By his will the premises, together with other property, were bequeathed absolutely to the appellant. As will appear, no legal personal representative of the testator was appointed until some years after his death. In the meantime a strange transaction had taken place. On 24 March 1930, an indenture was signed, sealed and delivered, purporting to be an assignment on sale of the premises by Li Woon Nam to Li Kai Loy, in consideration of a sum of 70,000 dollars paid by Li Kai Loy to Li Woon Nam, the receipt of which Li Woon Nam duly acknowledged. The sole witness to this document was a partner in a firm of solicitors known as Deacons. His good faith is in no way impugned. Li Kai Loy had been introduced to him by Ng Yu Hon and Li Kai Loy had in turn introduced some other man as being the proposed vendor Li Woon Nam. This man, whoever he was, came armed with the title deeds, viz., a deed of 19 February 1917, vesting the property in Ng Yu Hon, and the assignment to Li Woon Nam. These he left with Deacons. After the matter had been completed, Deacons registered this assignment by Li Woon Nam to Li Kai Loy in the Hong Kong Land Registry, and by a letter of 7 April 1930, sent to Li Kai Loy the title deeds above mentioned.

(3.) Obviously there was something wrong here. Li Woon Nam had been dead for nearly five years. Whatever may have been the reason which prompted the person or persons responsible for bringing this document into existence and recording it in the Hong Kong Land Registry, it is clear that per se the assignment was a nullity and passed nothing to anybody. For the purposes with which their Lordships are concerned however it is crucial to know whether the appellant was in any way and to what extent responsible for the transaction; and at this point the findings of fact by the Courts in Hong Kong are of vital importance.