PANG HIN LAM AND ANOTHER v. LAU WAH KWAN AND ANOTHER

PANG HIN LAM AND ANOTHER v. LAU WAH KWAN AND ANOTHER

Requisitions raised by the purchasers were properly made and were not properly or fully answered by the vendors' solicitors; the vendors therefore wrongly treated the purchasers' non‑completion as repudiatory and by so doing repudiated the agreement themselves; accordingly the purchasers were entitled to restitution of the deposit, interest, and recovery of stamp duty and investigatory costs.

Citation
PANG HIN LAM AND ANOTHER v. LAU WAH KWAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pang Hin Lam; 2nd Plaintiff: Ng Wai Han; 1st Defendant: Lau Wah Kwan; 2nd Defendant: Lam Kit Wan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 1998
Case Number
HCA6378/1996
Procedural Posture
Contract Sale of Property (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Requisitions on Title, Repudiation and Deposit Forfeiture, Powers of Attorney and Delegation, Vendor and Purchaser Obligations, Production of Title Documents
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Land Registration Agency Law Requisitions on Title Repudiation and Deposit Forfeiture Powers of Attorney and Delegation +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pang Hin Lam

1st Plaintiff

Ng Wai Han

2nd Plaintiff

Lau Wah Kwan

1st Defendant

Lam Kit Wan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Sale of Property (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors' solicitors were obliged to answer requisitions on title and whether they had done so
  2. 2 Whether the purchasers were entitled to withhold completion until requisitions were satisfactorily answered
  3. 3 Whether the vendors repudiated the agreement by treating non‑completion as repudiation and retaining the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

Requisitions raised by the purchasers were properly made and were not properly or fully answered by the vendors' solicitors; the vendors therefore wrongly treated the purchasers' non‑completion as repudiatory and by so doing repudiated the agreement themselves; accordingly the purchasers were entitled to restitution of the deposit, interest, and recovery of stamp duty and investigatory costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to repay deposit of $276,800.00 with interest from 23 May 1996
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of investigating title $6,490.00