CHUNG ON LING v. TSANG WING MAN

CHUNG ON LING v. TSANG WING MAN

The written agreement was unenforceable and could not be specifically enforced because it was one-sided, lacked consideration and was fatally vague as to completion; further, the plaintiff made an oral promise to complete by end August 2011 which she breached and whose misrepresentations and reckless conduct barred equitable relief. Consequently the specific performance claim failed and the registered charge was ordered vacated; the defendant was entitled to damages and costs.

Citation
CHUNG ON LING v. TSANG WING MAN
Parties
Plaintiff (action No 1826 of 2012); Defendant (misc Proc No 1609 of 2012): Tsang Wing Man (曾詠敏); Defendant (action No 1826 of 2012); Plaintiff (misc Proc No 1609 of 2012): Chung On Ling (鍾安寧)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
HCMP1609/2012
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions: Sale of Land/specific Performance and Application to Vacate Registered Charge / Judgment Following Trial (deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt, 8 May 2015)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for specific performance dismissed; charge registered by plaintiff vacated; defendant entitled to damages for unpaid rent and other heads and to costs (to be taxed if not agreed).
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Option to Purchase, Registration of Charge, Misrepresentation, Uncertainty and Vagueness in Contracts, Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Evidence Specific Performance Sale of Land Option to Purchase +5 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Wing Man (曾詠敏)

Plaintiff (action No 1826 of 2012); Defendant (misc Proc No 1609 of 2012)

Chung On Ling (鍾安寧)

Defendant (action No 1826 of 2012); Plaintiff (misc Proc No 1609 of 2012)

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions: Sale of Land/specific Performance and Application to Vacate Registered Charge / Judgment Following Trial (deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt, 8 May 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written agreement constituted an enforceable sale contract
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was void for uncertainty or lack of consideration
  3. 3 Whether there was an oral promise fixing completion by end of August 2011 and breach of it

Ratio Decidendi

The written agreement was unenforceable and could not be specifically enforced because it was one-sided, lacked consideration and was fatally vague as to completion; further, the plaintiff made an oral promise to complete by end August 2011 which she breached and whose misrepresentations and reckless conduct barred equitable relief. Consequently the specific performance claim failed and the registered charge was ordered vacated; the defendant was entitled to damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for specific performance dismissed; charge registered by plaintiff vacated; defendant entitled to damages for unpaid rent and other heads and to costs (to be taxed if not agreed).

Orders

  • The charge registered by the plaintiff against the property is vacated forthwith.
  • The defendant is free to sell the property to a genuine purchaser.