GLADSON CHINA LTD. v. LAM ALEXANDER CHUN JUNE AND ANOTHER

GLADSON CHINA LTD. v. LAM ALEXANDER CHUN JUNE AND ANOTHER

Clause 34 was unambiguous and constituted an express warranty that every structure complied with the Building Ordinance and expressly gave the purchaser the option to rescind; no distinction is to be drawn between structures known or unknown at contracting; defendants failed to establish legality of the entrance porch and did not cure the breach; plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescind and recover the relief claimed; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Citation
GLADSON CHINA LTD. v. LAM ALEXANDER CHUN JUNE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Gladson China Limited; 1st Defendant: Lam Alexander Chun June; 2nd Defendant: Lam Judith Ann
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Case Number
HCMP3602/1995
Procedural Posture
Conveyancing and Property Rescission of Sale and Purchase Agreement / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; order nisi that each party bear its own costs
Legal Topics
Rescission, Unauthorised Structures, Warranty and Representations, Title Requisitions, Contract Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Contract Civil Procedure Rescission Unauthorised Structures Warranty and Representations Title Requisitions +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladson China Limited

Plaintiff

Lam Alexander Chun June

1st Defendant

Lam Judith Ann

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Conveyancing and Property Rescission of Sale and Purchase Agreement / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was entitled to rescind the Formal Agreement under clause 34 because the entrance porch was unauthorised by the Building Authority
  2. 2 Whether clause 34 is limited to structures unknown to the purchaser at the time of contracting
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff waived requisitions or was time‑barred under clause 11 in raising objections to title

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 34 was unambiguous and constituted an express warranty that every structure complied with the Building Ordinance and expressly gave the purchaser the option to rescind; no distinction is to be drawn between structures known or unknown at contracting; defendants failed to establish legality of the entrance porch and did not cure the breach; plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescind and recover the relief claimed; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; order nisi that each party bear its own costs

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiff had validly rescinded the Provisional Agreement (30 March 1994) and the Formal Agreement (4 May 1994)
  • Order for return of deposit and monies as claimed by the plaintiff (judgment entered as claimed)