SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.

SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.

Following the Court of Appeal authority in Chun Hon Wai and applying Active Keen, the vendor had sufficiently shown it could give good title despite the earlier decision in Ultra Eternal; the purchasers were not entitled to terminate and the deposits were forfeited to the vendor.

Citation
SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.
Parties
Vendor: Nicerich Investments Limited; Purchaser: Sze King Lun; Purchaser: Shum Shui Fan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2000
Case Number
HCMP7102/1999
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (conveyancing / Property) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed; plaintiffs' claim for return of deposits and expenses dismissed; deposits forfeited to vendor.
Legal Topics
Good Title, Requisition to Title, Executor Power of Sale, Forfeiture of Deposit, Termination for Breach, Stakeholder Duties
Source Language
EN
Property Conveyancing Equity Contract Probate Good Title Requisition to Title Executor Power of Sale +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicerich Investments Limited

Vendor

Sze King Lun

Purchaser

Shum Shui Fan

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (conveyancing / Property) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor had shown and could give good title to the purchasers by completion date
  2. 2 Whether an executor can validly sell part of an estate without consent of specific legatees and what a purchaser may assume
  3. 3 Whether the purchasers were entitled to terminate and recover deposits and expenses

Ratio Decidendi

Following the Court of Appeal authority in Chun Hon Wai and applying Active Keen, the vendor had sufficiently shown it could give good title despite the earlier decision in Ultra Eternal; the purchasers were not entitled to terminate and the deposits were forfeited to the vendor.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; plaintiffs' claim for return of deposits and expenses dismissed; deposits forfeited to vendor.

Orders

  • Deposits totalling HK$928,000 to be paid to the defendant with interest earned thereon
  • Costs to the defendant (certificate for two counsel to be taxed if not agreed)