LUCKY SUCCESS (HK) LTD v. KO NI KWONG AND ANOTHER

LUCKY SUCCESS (HK) LTD v. KO NI KWONG AND ANOTHER

The vendors failed to show good title by the completion date because they did not produce timely, material evidence that the subdivision and related drainage and sanitary alterations had Building Authority approval; the late unsigned architect's certificate addressing only the partition was insufficient, and the unresolved risk of enforcement/demolition meant the purchaser was entitled to refuse completion and obtain the relief sought.

Citation
LUCKY SUCCESS (HK) LTD v. KO NI KWONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): Lucky Success (H.K.) Limited; Defendant (vendor): Ko Ni Kwong; Defendant (vendor): Wong May Yeut
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 2009
Case Number
HCMP567/2009
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing / Property Dispute) / Judgment on Originating Summons Delivered 27 July 2009
Outcome
Vendors failed to show good title; purchaser entitled to the relief sought in the Originating Summons.
Legal Topics
Good Title, Requisitions on Title, Occupation Permit, Building Authority Approval, Enforcement/demolition Risk, Completion (time of the Essence), Costs
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Building Regulation Contract Law Civil Procedure Good Title Requisitions on Title Occupation Permit +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Success (H.K.) Limited

Plaintiff (purchaser)

Ko Ni Kwong

Defendant (vendor)

Wong May Yeut

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing / Property Dispute) / Judgment on Originating Summons Delivered 27 July 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors had shown good title by producing material evidence that the subdivision and associated works on the 3rd floor had been approved by the Building Authority
  2. 2 Whether the late unsigned architect's certificate was a sufficient answer to the purchaser's requisition
  3. 3 Whether the alterations (kitchen, bathroom, drainage) required approval and thereby posed a real risk of enforcement or demolition orders

Ratio Decidendi

The vendors failed to show good title by the completion date because they did not produce timely, material evidence that the subdivision and related drainage and sanitary alterations had Building Authority approval; the late unsigned architect's certificate addressing only the partition was insufficient, and the unresolved risk of enforcement/demolition meant the purchaser was entitled to refuse completion and obtain the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Vendors failed to show good title; purchaser entitled to the relief sought in the Originating Summons.

Orders

  • Vendors have failed to show good title by completion date; purchaser entitled to the relief sought in the Originating Summons.
  • Costs awarded to the purchaser; to be assessed on the High Court scale.