YAM YUN FAI v. YIP SIU HUNG

YAM YUN FAI v. YIP SIU HUNG

Neither the verbal description nor the plan alone clearly and definitely defined the property; item (b) of the Assignment showed an assignment of one equal undivided 20th share and the Deed of Mutual Covenant demonstrated that one such share corresponded to the whole ground floor. Therefore the operative description is the whole ground floor and the vendor has shown good title; the purchaser's remaining doubts were not reasonable and the requisition was sufficiently answered.

Citation
YAM YUN FAI v. YIP SIU HUNG
Parties
Plaintiff (vendor): Yam Yun Fai; Defendant (purchaser): Yip Siu Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 1992
Case Number
HCMP3348/1991
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Declaration that the vendor has shown good title to the property agreed to be sold (the whole ground floor of Nos.40 and 42 Bonham Road) and that the purchaser's requisition has been sufficiently answered; costs as agreed.
Legal Topics
Description of Property, Construction of Deeds, Requisition on Title, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Extrinsic Evidence, Vendor and Purchaser Summons, Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet
Source Language
EN
Property Law Conveyancing Contract Law Real Property Land Title Description of Property Construction of Deeds Requisition 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yam Yun Fai

Plaintiff (vendor)

Yip Siu Hung

Defendant (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operative description in the Assignment is the verbal description (whole ground floor) or the plan (four designated carports)
  2. 2 Whether the vendor has proved good title to the property agreed to be sold
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser's requisition on title was sufficiently answered

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the verbal description nor the plan alone clearly and definitely defined the property; item (b) of the Assignment showed an assignment of one equal undivided 20th share and the Deed of Mutual Covenant demonstrated that one such share corresponded to the whole ground floor. Therefore the operative description is the whole ground floor and the vendor has shown good title; the purchaser's remaining doubts were not reasonable and the requisition was sufficiently answered.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the vendor has shown good title to the property agreed to be sold (the whole ground floor of Nos.40 and 42 Bonham Road) and that the purchaser's requisition has been sufficiently answered; costs as agreed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff vendor has shown good title to the property agreed to be sold (the whole Ground Floor of Nos.40 and 42 Bonham Road)
  • Declaration that the requisition dated 4 April 1991 has been sufficiently answered by the plaintiff's solicitors' letter dated 12 June 1991