CHEUNG PIK WAN AND ANOTHER v. TONG SAU PING AND OTHERS

CHEUNG PIK WAN AND ANOTHER v. TONG SAU PING AND OTHERS

The court found that the 1st defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to sign the Power of Attorney and that the plaintiff, being illiterate and unable to understand Cantonese, lacked consent such that non est factum succeeds; accordingly the Power of Attorney and the 1 February 1982 assignment are void, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEUNG PIK WAN AND ANOTHER v. TONG SAU PING AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cheung Pik Wan; 2nd Plaintiff: Sze Sin Yu; 1st Defendant: Tong Sau Ping; 2nd Defendant: Ng Chi Kee Andix; 3rd Defendant: Teo Bee Kheng Michelle; 4th Defendant: Kwong On Bank Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 1986
Case Number
HCA3867/1984
Procedural Posture
Land/property Dispute — Equitable Title and Mortgage / High Court Trial — Judgment Delivered 23 May 1986
Outcome
Power of Attorney and 1 February 1982 assignment declared void for non est factum induced by fraud; 2nd and 3rd defendants held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice; further relief to be determined after hearing submissions.
Legal Topics
Non Est Factum, Fraud, Bona Fide Purchaser, Power of Attorney, Mortgage, Costs and Case Management
Source Language
en
Property Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Non Est Factum Fraud Bona Fide Purchaser Power of Attorney +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Pik Wan

1st Plaintiff

Sze Sin Yu

2nd Plaintiff

Tong Sau Ping

1st Defendant

Ng Chi Kee Andix

2nd Defendant

Teo Bee Kheng Michelle

3rd Defendant

Kwong On Bank Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land/property Dispute — Equitable Title and Mortgage / High Court Trial — Judgment Delivered 23 May 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the plaintiff induced by fraud to part with possession of her title deeds and was the 2nd defendant party to that fraud?
  2. 2 Whether the Power of Attorney is void for non est factum.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants are bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to sign the Power of Attorney and that the plaintiff, being illiterate and unable to understand Cantonese, lacked consent such that non est factum succeeds; accordingly the Power of Attorney and the 1 February 1982 assignment are void, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants do not qualify as bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

Court Disposition

Power of Attorney and 1 February 1982 assignment declared void for non est factum induced by fraud; 2nd and 3rd defendants held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice; further relief to be determined after hearing submissions.

Orders

  • Declare Power of Attorney void.
  • Declare assignment dated 1 February 1982 void.