AMY SO v. TONY CHIU YUN KAN AND OTHERS

AMY SO v. TONY CHIU YUN KAN AND OTHERS

The court preferred the evidence of the agent and the plaintiff over the defendants, found that both defendants authorised the agent (including the 2nd defendant), that the plaintiff was able, ready and willing to complete, and exercised its equitable discretion to decree specific performance; there was no breach of warranty by the agent.

Citation
AMY SO v. TONY CHIU YUN KAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Amy So; 1st Defendant: Tony Chiu Yun Kan; 2nd Defendant: Leslie Au Moon Choi; 3rd Defendant: Fung Po Chun Goldie; 1st Third Party: Tony Chiu Yun Kan; 2nd Third Party: Fung Po Chun Goldie
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 1994
Case Number
HCA8771/1991
Procedural Posture
Contract (sale of Land) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff; Third Party proceedings disposed accordingly
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agency, Oral Authority, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Commission
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Agency Oral Authority Sale and Purchase Agreement +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amy So

Plaintiff

Tony Chiu Yun Kan

1st Defendant

Leslie Au Moon Choi

2nd Defendant

Fung Po Chun Goldie

3rd Defendant

Tony Chiu Yun Kan

1st Third Party

Fung Po Chun Goldie

2nd Third Party

Procedural Posture

Contract (sale of Land) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate agent (3rd defendant) was authorised by the co-owners to sell the property
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant consented to the sale
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was able, ready and willing to complete and thus entitled to specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

The court preferred the evidence of the agent and the plaintiff over the defendants, found that both defendants authorised the agent (including the 2nd defendant), that the plaintiff was able, ready and willing to complete, and exercised its equitable discretion to decree specific performance; there was no breach of warranty by the agent.

Court Disposition

Decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff; Third Party proceedings disposed accordingly

Orders

  • Specific performance decreed in favour of the plaintiff
  • Action and Third Party proceedings disposed accordingly