CHAN CARRIE v. RICHWAY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

CHAN CARRIE v. RICHWAY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Applying Court of Final Appeal authority (notably Jumbo Gold) and appellate guidance on the meaning of good title, the court found that the Occupation Permit and long‑standing, conspicuous non‑domestic use (with Government knowledge) removed any real risk of government enforcement; therefore the requisition was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 506
Parties
Plaintiff/vendor: Wielder Properties Investment Company Limited; Plaintiff/vendor: Chan Carrie; Defendant/purchaser: Richway International Investment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2020
Case Number
HCMP1029/2019
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap.219) / Determined on Paper; Judgment Delivered 23 March 2020
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs (vendors) in HCMP 1028/2019 and HCMP 1029/2019
Legal Topics
Good Title, Breach of Lease Covenant, Government Lease Enforcement, Occupation Permit, Vendor Requisitions, Stare Decisis
Source Language
en
Property Law Conveyancing Civil Procedure Administrative Law Good Title Breach of Lease Covenant Government Lease Enforcement Occupation Permit +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wielder Properties Investment Company Limited

Plaintiff/vendor

Chan Carrie

Plaintiff/vendor

Richway International Investment Limited

Defendant/purchaser

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap.219) / Determined on Paper; Judgment Delivered 23 March 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requisition as to discrepancy between the Crown Lease user restriction and the Occupation Permit was satisfactorily answered
  2. 2 Whether the Vendors can give good title despite breach of the Crown Lease user covenant
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of government enforcement/re-entry arising from the breach

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Court of Final Appeal authority (notably Jumbo Gold) and appellate guidance on the meaning of good title, the court found that the Occupation Permit and long‑standing, conspicuous non‑domestic use (with Government knowledge) removed any real risk of government enforcement; therefore the requisition was satisfactorily answered and the Vendors can give good title.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs (vendors) in HCMP 1028/2019 and HCMP 1029/2019

Orders

  • Order in terms of the Originating Summons in each case
  • No order as to costs