LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN

LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN

The judge found no actionable misrepresentation or mistake: the Agreement expressly described the entire lot, clause 3 addressed the Northern Portion, the solicitor explained the Agreement, and the vendor intended to sell the whole property; accordingly the Agreement was enforceable and specific performance was ordered while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Citation
LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): Lam Mee King; Defendant (vendor / Registered Owner): Gene Don Wong (deceased); Guardian Ad Litem / Representative of the Estate: Dr Wong Kuo Sun John
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 July 2013
Case Number
DCCJ2408/2009
Procedural Posture
Contract for Sale of Land Claim for Specific Performance / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; Agreement specifically performed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; damages in addition to and/or in lieu of specific performance to be assessed; costs to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Misrepresentation, Mistake, Capacity, Vacant Possession, Registration, Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Equity Specific Performance Misrepresentation Mistake Capacity Vacant Possession +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Mee King

Plaintiff (purchaser)

Gene Don Wong (deceased)

Defendant (vendor / Registered Owner)

Dr Wong Kuo Sun John

Guardian Ad Litem / Representative of the Estate

Procedural Posture

Contract for Sale of Land Claim for Specific Performance / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchasers (Mr CT Chu and/or Mr Gary Chu) represented to the vendor that only the Southern Portion was being sold
  2. 2 Whether the vendor acted in reliance on any such representation when signing the Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the vendor believed or intended to sell only the Southern Portion when executing the Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found no actionable misrepresentation or mistake: the Agreement expressly described the entire lot, clause 3 addressed the Northern Portion, the solicitor explained the Agreement, and the vendor intended to sell the whole property; accordingly the Agreement was enforceable and specific performance was ordered while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; Agreement specifically performed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; damages in addition to and/or in lieu of specific performance to be assessed; costs to plaintiff

Orders

  • The Agreement for sale and purchase of the Property (including both the Northern Portion and the Southern Portion) be specifically performed
  • Plaintiff at liberty to apply for any necessary and consequential accounts, directions and inquiries