D.H. SHUTTLECOCKS LIMITED v. KEUNG SHIU TANG

D.H. SHUTTLECOCKS LIMITED v. KEUNG SHIU TANG

The provisional sale and purchase agreement was binding; the vendor, by insisting on 'Special Stipulations' excluding requisitions on the power of attorney, breached the implied obligation to exhibit good title under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and thereby could not validly insist the purchaser sign a formal agreement or pay the further deposit by the target date; the vendor's solicitors' communications amounted to anticipatory repudiation and the purported forfeiture of the initial deposit was unjustified; interlocutory judgment for the purchaser follows.

Citation
D.H. SHUTTLECOCKS LIMITED v. KEUNG SHIU TANG
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): D.H. Shuttlecocks Limited; Defendant (vendor): Keung Shiu Tang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 1993
Case Number
HCA9539/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Specific Performance / Property Conveyancing / Interlocutory Judgment (written Judgment Reserved Pursuant to O.42 R.5 B)
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment entered for the Purchaser; vendor's purported repudiation and forfeiture of deposit rejected; matter remitted for submissions on remedies.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Open Contract, Power of Attorney, Forfeiture of Deposit, Requisitions on Title, Time of Essence, Anticipatory Breach
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Equity Specific Performance Open Contract Power of Attorney Forfeiture of Deposit +3 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.H. Shuttlecocks Limited

Plaintiff (purchaser)

Keung Shiu Tang

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Civil Specific Performance / Property Conveyancing / Interlocutory Judgment (written Judgment Reserved Pursuant to O.42 R.5 B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisional sale and purchase agreement was a binding contract
  2. 2 Whether the vendor could impose special stipulations excluding purchaser's right to raise requisitions on a power of attorney
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was precluded from raising requisitions on the power of attorney and title

Ratio Decidendi

The provisional sale and purchase agreement was binding; the vendor, by insisting on 'Special Stipulations' excluding requisitions on the power of attorney, breached the implied obligation to exhibit good title under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and thereby could not validly insist the purchaser sign a formal agreement or pay the further deposit by the target date; the vendor's solicitors' communications amounted to anticipatory repudiation and the purported forfeiture of the initial deposit was unjustified; interlocutory judgment for the purchaser follows.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory judgment entered for the Purchaser; vendor's purported repudiation and forfeiture of deposit rejected; matter remitted for submissions on remedies.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment in favour of D.H. Shuttlecocks Limited (the Purchaser)
  • Order nisi for costs for 14 days in favour of the Purchaser