SAM YU LIK ERIC v. CHAO CHIUNG YO (趙祟岳), the sole executor of the estate of LEUNG HING SHAN (梁慶珊),deceased

SAM YU LIK ERIC v. CHAO CHIUNG YO (趙祟岳), the sole executor of the estate of LEUNG HING SHAN (梁慶珊),deceased

The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions (in particular the Vendor's lack of clear power to sell the parking space under the Will), thereby committing a repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 providing liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000 was not a penalty and is enforceable; the Purchaser is entitled to liquidated damages, interest and an indemnity in respect of any estate agent commission payable; equitable lien need not be declared because security had been paid into court.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1377
Parties
Plaintiff (hcmp 12/2023); Defendant (hcmp 15/2023); Vendor; Executor of the Estate: Chao Chiung Yo; Defendant (hcmp 12/2023); Plaintiff (hcmp 15/2023); Purchaser: Sam Yu Lik Eric; Deceased (testatrix; Owner of the Property): Leung Hing Shan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Case Number
HCMP15/2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (hcmp 12/2023 & HCMP 15/2023) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (14 June 2024)
Outcome
Judgment for the Purchaser. Declarations that the Vendor had not shown good title and was in repudiatory breach; Purchaser validly accepted repudiation; liquidated damages payable and indemnity as to estate agent commission; interest and costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Title and Requisitions, Repudiatory Breach, Liquidated Damages Vs Penalty, Equitable Lien, Probate Rectification, Estate Agent Commission, Land Registration
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Probate and Administration Contract Law Property Law Equity Title and Requisitions Repudiatory Breach Liquidated Damages Vs Penalty +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chao Chiung Yo

Plaintiff (hcmp 12/2023); Defendant (hcmp 15/2023); Vendor; Executor of the Estate

Sam Yu Lik Eric

Defendant (hcmp 12/2023); Plaintiff (hcmp 15/2023); Purchaser

Leung Hing Shan

Deceased (testatrix; Owner of the Property)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (hcmp 12/2023 & HCMP 15/2023) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (14 June 2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Vendor showed good title and satisfactorily answered requisitions on the completion date
  2. 2 Whether the Vendor was in repudiatory breach and whether the Purchaser validly accepted repudiation
  3. 3 Whether clause 7 (liquidated damages) was a penalty or enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions (in particular the Vendor's lack of clear power to sell the parking space under the Will), thereby committing a repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 providing liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000 was not a penalty and is enforceable; the Purchaser is entitled to liquidated damages, interest and an indemnity in respect of any estate agent commission payable; equitable lien need not be declared because security had been paid into court.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Purchaser. Declarations that the Vendor had not shown good title and was in repudiatory breach; Purchaser validly accepted repudiation; liquidated damages payable and indemnity as to estate agent commission; interest and costs awarded.

Orders

  • Declaration that good title to the Property had not been shown by the Vendor
  • Declaration that the Vendor was in repudiatory breach of the Agreement by reason of failure to show good title and/or to satisfactorily answer requisitions