MA HON MING v. LEE TSAN SUM

MA HON MING v. LEE TSAN SUM

The vendor failed to show a good title because no occupation permit or the necessary certificates of exemption had been produced or shown to exist in a manner eliminating a real risk of enforcement under the Building Ordinance; therefore the vendor was in breach and the purchaser was entitled to repayment of the deposit and to damages and costs (excluding estate agent fees).

Citation
MA HON MING v. LEE TSAN SUM
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): MA HON MING; Defendant (vendor): LEE TSAN SUM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2000
Case Number
HCA1620/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff (purchaser). Vendor held in breach for failing to show good title.
Legal Topics
Good Title, Certificate of Exemption, Occupation Permit, Deposits and Remedies, Stamp Duty Recovery, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Property Contract Conveyancing Building Regulations Good Title Certificate of Exemption Occupation Permit Deposits and Remedies +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA HON MING

Plaintiff (purchaser)

LEE TSAN SUM

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor had shown a good title to the property by producing the documents and correspondence supplied
  2. 2 Whether requisitions for occupation permit, certificates of exemption and certificate of compliance were properly raised and sufficiently answered
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was entitled to refuse completion and recover deposit and damages

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor failed to show a good title because no occupation permit or the necessary certificates of exemption had been produced or shown to exist in a manner eliminating a real risk of enforcement under the Building Ordinance; therefore the vendor was in breach and the purchaser was entitled to repayment of the deposit and to damages and costs (excluding estate agent fees).

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff (purchaser). Vendor held in breach for failing to show good title.

Orders

  • Vendor to repay deposit of $138000.00 to purchaser
  • Declaration that purchaser is entitled to a lien on the property for repayment of $138000.00