(A) Introduction
Famous Charm Ltd v. Secretary for Justice (for and on behalf of the Land Registrar), HCMP 1171/2025, date of judgment: 25 November 2025 [1] is the first case in Hong Kong concerning an application to vacate a Notice issued by the Magistrate under Section 145A(2) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) (the “CO”) and registered in the Land Registry against a property under Section 153M of the CO. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s application to vacate the said Notice.
This case provides valuable guidance on the legal principles and procedures for similar cases in the future. In particular, it clarifies that such applications should be made ex parte and that the Land Registrar and the Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice should not be joined as parties to such applications.
(B) Facts
The Plaintiff has been the registered owner of the Shop on 2/F, Tak Sing Alliance Building, No. 115 Chatham Road South, Kowloon (the “Property”) since 8 May 2017. [2] Its acquisition was subject to an existing tenancy between the previous owner and one Yeung Shing (the “Former Tenant”) from 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2018. [3]
The Former Tenant was later convicted of keeping a vice establishment at the Property under Section 139 of the CO. [4] After that, a Notice issued by the Magistrate dated 4 December 2018 (the “Notice”) pursuant to Section 145A(2) of the CO. [5] It was then registered against the Property with the Land Registry on 31 December 2018 under Section 153M(1) of CO. [6] Under Section 153M(2) of the CO, such a notice “shall be deemed to be an instrument affecting land, but a failure to register such a notice of copy of an order shall not… affect its validity as against any person”.
The Plaintiff claimed that it had no involvement with or knowledge of the offence or the offenders and that the Property had never been used as a vice establishment or for any other illicit purposes since the tenancy ended. [7]
In June 2025, the Plaintiff and a purchaser entered into a provisional sale and purchase agreement in respect of the Property, which was conditional upon the removal of the Notice by 31 December 2025. [8]
Subsequently, the Plaintiff, by Originating Summons filed on 15 July 2025, sought an order to vacate the Notice. [9] The Defendant was the Land Registrar. The Land Registrar wrote to the Court stating that it was not in a position to address the Court on the legislative intent and purpose of the relevant statutory provisions and that investigating any connection between the Plaintiff and the offenders was outside its statutory role. [10]
After that, the Court directed the Plaintiff to join the Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice as an interested party on two grounds: (1) to ensure the fair disposal of the subject matter, as the Prosecution Division could clarify its position regarding the Notice; and (2) given potential jurisprudential significance of the subject matter, the Court needed proper assistance rather than one-sided argument from the Plaintiff only. [11]
(C) Issues
The Court addressed the following issues:
(1) What is the legislative purpose of issuing and registering a notice under Sections 145A, 153I and 153M of the CO?
(2) What is the nature of the Notice?
(3) Does the Court have jurisdiction to vacate the Notice?
(4) Should the Land Registrar or Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice be joined to such applications?
(D) Decision
Issue 1: The Purpose of the Statutory Regime
The Court explained that the purpose of Section 145A, 153I and 153M of the CO is twofold: [12]
(1) To give notice accessible by the public that the premises have been the subject of a conviction for keeping a vice establishment. This places any purchaser, mortgagee or chargee on notice that they would acquire an interest in the premises at their own risk, as it may be subject to a closure order.
(2) To protect purchasers for value during the period between conviction and the registration of the notice, during which the public would have no means of knowing about the conviction. Therefore, Section 153C of the CO provides a mechanism for such a purchaser to apply to rescind any subsequent closure order.
Issue 2: The Nature of the Notice
The Court explained that a notice issued under Section 145A and registered under Section 153M of the CO logically ceases to serve its purpose after the expiration of statutory periods related to potential closure orders, namely, (1) 16 months after the last relevant conviction; (2) the expiry of a 6-month closure order; or (3) if a closure order was suspended, 2 years after the suspension plus any remaining closure period (not exceeding 6 months), whichever is longer. [13] Once the relevant period expires, no closure order can be made based on the previous conviction, and any existing order would have lapsed. As such, the notice no longer affects an interest in the land. [14]
In this case, the Notice was registered on 31 December 2018. All potential statutory periods had long expired. Therefore, the Court held that the Notice no longer serves any purpose, and no longer affects the Property. [15]
Issue 3: Jurisdiction to Vacate the Notice
The Court affirmed that the CO contains no provision for vacating such a notice. [16] Further, Section 19 of the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap. 128) (“LRO”) allows for the vacation of a lis pendens. The Notice did not fall within the definition of “lis pendens” under Section 2 of the LRO. [17]
However, the Court affirmed its inherent jurisdiction to vacate the registration of an instrument that no longer affects land. [18] It found that the Notice no longer affects the Property and the deeming effect under Section 153M(2) of the CO is rebutted. Given that the Notice would be a stigma on the Property, the Court found it just and convenient to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to vacate the registration of the Notice. [19]
Issue 4: Should the Land Registrar or Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice be joined
The Court held that neither the Land Registrar nor the Prosecution Division should be joined in future applications on the following grounds:
(1) The Land Registrar has no power to decide whether or not to vacate such a notice. If the applicant would like to seek any clarification from the Land Registrar, he could do so by way of correspondence. [20]
(2) The Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice has no legal role to play. [21]
The Court added that such an application, in the future, shall be made ex parte and the applicant shall have the duty to make full and frank disclosure to the Court. [22]
(E) Key Takeaways
This landmark decision establishes the legal framework for vacating a notice issued under Section 145A of the CO and registered in the Land Registry under Section 153M of the CO as well as provides helpful guidance for property owners as follows:
(1) Precedent on Purpose and Effect: The Court clarified that a notice issued under Section 145Aof the CO and registered in the Land Registry under Section 153M of the CO serves as a public warning mechanism. Its purpose is to alert potential buyers, mortgagees or chargees that the premises have been used as a vice establishment and may be subject to closure orders.
(2) Inherent Jurisdiction: The Court affirmed its inherent jurisdiction to vacate such a notice once it ceases to affect the property.
(3) Procedural Guidance for Future Applications: Applications should be made ex parte with the applicant’s duty of full and frank disclosure. Most importantly, it is not necessary to join the Land Registrar or the Prosecution Division of the Department of Justice as parties.
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=174962
[2] Famous Charm Ltd v. Secretary for Justice (for and on behalf of the Land Registrar), HCMP 1171/2025, date of judgment: 25 November 2025, §3
[3] Ibid, §4
[4] Section 139 of the CO, the offence under which the Offenders were convicted, provides that:-
“Keeping a vice establishment
(1) A person who on any occasion —
(a) keeps any premises, vessel or place as a vice establishment; or
(b) manages or assists in the management, or is otherwise in charge or control, of any premises, vessel or place kept as a vice establishment,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable…
(2) Where —
…
(b) a person is acquitted or convicted of… an offence under this section,
section 145A applies.”
[5] Section 145A of the CO provides that:-
“(2) Where a person is acquitted or convicted by a court or magistrate of… an offence under section 139, 143, 144 or 145, the court or magistrate… (as the case may be) shall as soon as reasonably practicable send a notice in writing to the appropriate person stating that fact and the date on which it occurred and setting out the specified information.
(3) In this section —
(a) in the case of an offence alleged or proved to have been committed in relation to any premises or place other than a vessel, the Land Registrar…”
[6] Section 153M(1) of the CO provides that:-
"Where the Land Registrar receives a notice sent to him under section 145A, 153C(6) or 153H(4), or a copy of an order sent to him under section 153A(2), 153I(8) or 153K(5), he shall as soon as reasonably practicable,—
(a)prepare and verify a memorial of the notice or copy of an order, that memorial being in the form prescribed and containing the particulars required by or under the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap. 128); and
(b)register the notice or copy of an order."
[7] Famous Charm Ltd v. Secretary for Justice (for and on behalf of the Land Registrar), HCMP 1171/2025, date of judgment: 25 November 2025, §10
[8] Ibid, §11
[9] Ibid, §1
[10] Ibid, §14
[11] Ibid, §15
[12] Ibid, §23
[13] Ibid, §25
[14] Ibid
[15] Famous Charm Ltd v. Secretary for Justice (for and on behalf of the Land Registrar), HCMP 1171/2025, date of judgment: 25 November 2025, §26
[16] Ibid, §27
[17] Ibid, §28
[18] Ibid, §29
[19] Ibid, §30
[20] Ibid, §34
[21] Ibid, §35
[22] Ibid, §36
No comments:
Post a Comment