CHOI KAR YIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG

CHOI KAR YIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG

The vendor failed to satisfactorily answer requisitions: the statutory declaration was insufficient because it was not made by the person who last had custody of the missing deeds and did not account for their loss; the sale was by the judgment debtor pursuant to the District Court order (not a mortgagee sale) so sections 2 and 53 CPO did not discharge the registered charging orders; consequently the vendor did not make good title and the purchasers' declarations and orders were granted.

Citation
CHOI KAR YIN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIU HUNG
Parties
Purchasers: Plaintiffs; Vendor: Wong Siu Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Case Number
HCMP1728/2006
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Declarations and orders in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Originating Summons dated 25 August 2006 granted in favour of the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Proof of Title, Missing Title Deeds, Charging Orders, Statutory Declaration, Time Bar of Requisitions
Source Language
EN
Property Law Conveyancing Civil Procedure Proof of Title Missing Title Deeds Charging Orders Statutory Declaration Time Bar of Requisitions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Purchasers

Wong Siu Hung

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor's statutory declaration suffices to account for missing original title deeds
  2. 2 Whether the purchasers' requisitions were raised out of time under the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the charging orders were discharged by operation of law under sections 2 and 53 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor failed to satisfactorily answer requisitions: the statutory declaration was insufficient because it was not made by the person who last had custody of the missing deeds and did not account for their loss; the sale was by the judgment debtor pursuant to the District Court order (not a mortgagee sale) so sections 2 and 53 CPO did not discharge the registered charging orders; consequently the vendor did not make good title and the purchasers' declarations and orders were granted.

Court Disposition

Declarations and orders in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Originating Summons dated 25 August 2006 granted in favour of the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Declarations and orders in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Originating Summons dated 25 August 2006 granted
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs on the High Court scale