FIRST VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PAT CITY LTD

FIRST VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PAT CITY LTD

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because triable issues existed on (a) whether the 2nd requisition was time-barred or adequately explained and (b) whether the vendor had shown and given good title given a real risk of enforcement by the Buildings Department; accordingly purchaser was granted unconditional leave to defend the counterclaim. The alternative application for security for costs failed because the vendor did not prove by credible testimony that the purchaser was likely to be unable to pay costs.

Citation
FIRST VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PAT CITY LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: First View Development Limited; Defendant: Pat City Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2007
Case Number
HCA2071/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale and Purchase of Property) / Application for Summary Judgment and Alternative Application for Security for Costs (heard)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; purchaser granted unconditional leave to defend counterclaim; application for security for costs dismissed; costs directions given.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Forfeiture of Deposit, Title Defects, Requisitions on Title, Security for Costs, Statutory Enforcement Under Building Regulations
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Company Law Building and Construction Regulation Summary Judgment Forfeiture of Deposit Title Defects +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First View Development Limited

Plaintiff

Pat City Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale and Purchase of Property) / Application for Summary Judgment and Alternative Application for Security for Costs (heard)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd requisition was raised out of time and thereby waived under clause 11 of the agreements
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd requisition had substantive merit (i.e. whether there were contraventions of Building (Planning) Regulation 72 and the Design Manual Barrier Free Access)
  3. 3 Whether vendor had shown and given good title under clause 16

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because triable issues existed on (a) whether the 2nd requisition was time-barred or adequately explained and (b) whether the vendor had shown and given good title given a real risk of enforcement by the Buildings Department; accordingly purchaser was granted unconditional leave to defend the counterclaim. The alternative application for security for costs failed because the vendor did not prove by credible testimony that the purchaser was likely to be unable to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; purchaser granted unconditional leave to defend counterclaim; application for security for costs dismissed; costs directions given.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Purchaser (First View Development Limited) granted unconditional leave to defend the defendants counterclaim