LI YING CHING v. AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LTD

LI YING CHING v. AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LTD

Because the assignment described the signatory as a director and not as Chairman and no admissible evidence established she was Chairman, s.23 did not operate to preserve the execution; the assignment therefore failed to comply with Article 20 and the Defendant failed to show good title, entitling the Plaintiff to remedies including repayment of the deposit, costs and interest.

Citation
LI YING CHING v. AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): LI YING CHING; Defendant (vendor): AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 September 1996
Case Number
HCMP3249/1995
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (high Court Miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered 26 September 1996
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant failed to satisfactorily answer requisition and failed to show good title.
Legal Topics
Execution of Company Documents, Presumption of Due Execution (s.23 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance), Compliance With Memorandum and Articles of Association, Requisition of Title, Refund of Deposit, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Company Law Property Law Execution of Company Documents Presumption of Due Execution (s.23 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) Compliance With Memorandum and Articles of Association Requisition of Title Refund of Deposit +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LI YING CHING

Plaintiff (purchaser)

AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LIMITED

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (high Court Miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered 26 September 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment was validly executed by the company in accordance with Article 20 of its Articles of Association
  2. 2 Whether s.23 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (presumption of due execution) applies to cure the apparent non-compliance with the Articles
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant has shown good title to the property and is entitled to retain the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

Because the assignment described the signatory as a director and not as Chairman and no admissible evidence established she was Chairman, s.23 did not operate to preserve the execution; the assignment therefore failed to comply with Article 20 and the Defendant failed to show good title, entitling the Plaintiff to remedies including repayment of the deposit, costs and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant failed to satisfactorily answer requisition and failed to show good title.

Orders

  • Declaration that Defendant failed to satisfactorily answer Requisition No 10 and has failed to show a good title to the property
  • Order that Defendant refund to Plaintiff the sum of $162,000 being the deposit paid pursuant to the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 9 July 1996