KENSEL LTD. v. CHARMFAST INVESTMENT LTD.

KENSEL LTD. v. CHARMFAST INVESTMENT LTD.

The unauthorised structures were patent and discoverable on inspection; the purchaser failed to use due diligence and did not raise requisitions within the contractual time limit thereby waiving objections; the vendor had no knowledge before the time limit; purchaser's refusal to complete amounted to repudiation which the vendor was entitled to accept; purchaser's claim dismissed.

Citation
KENSEL LTD. v. CHARMFAST INVESTMENT LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff / Purchaser: KENSEL LIMITED; Defendant / Vendor: CHARMFAST INVESTMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 September 2001
Case Number
HCMP6890/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Sale and Purchase of Land / Title Dispute / Judgment on Merits (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; purchaser repudiation accepted by vendor; costs awarded to vendor
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Structures, Title Defects, Requisitions on Title, Duty of Disclosure, Waiver and Time Limits, Repudiation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Civil Procedure Building Regulation Enforcement Unauthorised Structures Title Defects Requisitions on Title +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KENSEL LIMITED

Plaintiff / Purchaser

CHARMFAST INVESTMENT LIMITED

Defendant / Vendor

Procedural Posture

Civil Sale and Purchase of Land / Title Dispute / Judgment on Merits (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unauthorised structures rendered vendor unable to show good title
  2. 2 Whether purchaser waived objections by failing to raise requisitions within contractual time
  3. 3 Whether vendor had duty to make full and frank disclosure beyond common law or express warranties in contract

Ratio Decidendi

The unauthorised structures were patent and discoverable on inspection; the purchaser failed to use due diligence and did not raise requisitions within the contractual time limit thereby waiving objections; the vendor had no knowledge before the time limit; purchaser's refusal to complete amounted to repudiation which the vendor was entitled to accept; purchaser's claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; purchaser repudiation accepted by vendor; costs awarded to vendor

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by the purchaser to the vendor to be taxed if not agreed (costs nisi pursuant to RHC Ord. 42 r. 5B(6))