MAX CROWN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG KIT CHUN

MAX CROWN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG KIT CHUN

The vendor's answers to the requisition under Special Condition 26(a) were misleading and did not adequately disclose that no Certificates of Exemption had ever been issued; on that basis the purchaser was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit and damages. The answer given on Special Condition 5(a) was sufficient and did not justify rescission. The purchaser's claimed damages were awarded in full subject to interest directions and costs to the purchaser.

Citation
MAX CROWN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG KIT CHUN
Parties
Applicant / Purchaser / Plaintiff: Max Crown International Limited; Respondent / Vendor / Defendant: Wong Kit Chun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 2004
Case Number
HCMP2028/2003
Procedural Posture
Conveyancing / Property Dispute (rescission of Sale and Purchase Agreement) / Court of First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff. Declaration that requisitions in relation to Special Condition 26(a) were not sufficiently or satisfactorily answered; declaration that plaintiff was entitled to rescind; defendant ordered to refund deposit and pay damages and interest; costs nisi to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Certificates of Exemption, Certificate of Compliance, Requisitions on Title, New Grant Conditions, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Deposit Forfeiture, Mitigation of Damages, Limitation
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Remedies (rescission, Damages) Certificates of Exemption Certificate of Compliance Requisitions on Title New Grant Conditions +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Max Crown International Limited

Applicant / Purchaser / Plaintiff

Wong Kit Chun

Respondent / Vendor / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Conveyancing / Property Dispute (rescission of Sale and Purchase Agreement) / Court of First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor's answers to requisitions under Special Condition 26(a) were sufficient or satisfactory as at completion date 20 May 1997
  2. 2 Whether absence or non‑production of Certificate(s) of Exemption formed part of title and entitled purchaser to rescind
  3. 3 Whether Certificate of Compliance substituted for or proved existence of Certificates of Exemption

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor's answers to the requisition under Special Condition 26(a) were misleading and did not adequately disclose that no Certificates of Exemption had ever been issued; on that basis the purchaser was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit and damages. The answer given on Special Condition 5(a) was sufficient and did not justify rescission. The purchaser's claimed damages were awarded in full subject to interest directions and costs to the purchaser.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff. Declaration that requisitions in relation to Special Condition 26(a) were not sufficiently or satisfactorily answered; declaration that plaintiff was entitled to rescind; defendant ordered to refund deposit and pay damages and interest; costs nisi to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration that requisitions and objections in respect of title relating to Special Condition 26(a) have not been sufficiently or satisfactorily answered
  • Declaration that plaintiff was entitled to rescind and/or cancel the Agreement dated 19 March 1997