CHAN MAN CHOI AND ANOTHER v. POON FOOK WAH AND ANOTHER

CHAN MAN CHOI AND ANOTHER v. POON FOOK WAH AND ANOTHER

Defendants failed to answer the plaintiffs' requisition satisfactorily and to prove that removal/modification of the unauthorised extension had been properly and completely performed before completion; accordingly the purchaser (second plaintiff, nominee) was entitled to rescind and recover deposits and damages under the contract; defendants' counterclaim for forfeiture was dismissed.

Citation
CHAN MAN CHOI AND ANOTHER v. POON FOOK WAH AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHAN MAN CHOI; 2nd Plaintiff: SUCCESS MILLION INVESTMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: POON FOOK WAH; 2nd Defendant: LAM KWAN CHUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Case Number
HCA4870/1998
Procedural Posture
Sale and Purchase of Property Contract Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; defendants to refund deposits and pay liquidated damages and interest; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs (nisi).
Legal Topics
Good Title, Requisition and Proof of Title, Rescission, Forfeiture of Deposit, Illegal Structure, Completion, Time Is of the Essence, Remedies for Breach
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Conveyancing Building Regulation Law Good Title Requisition and Proof of Title Rescission Forfeiture of Deposit +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN MAN CHOI

1st Plaintiff

SUCCESS MILLION INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

POON FOOK WAH

1st Defendant

LAM KWAN CHUN

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sale and Purchase of Property Contract Dispute / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants answered purchasers' requisition concerning an alleged unauthorised extension satisfactorily and in time
  2. 2 Whether purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreement or were limited to damages under the contractual clauses
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were entitled to forfeit the deposits and the target of any counterclaim (1st or 2nd plaintiff)

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to answer the plaintiffs' requisition satisfactorily and to prove that removal/modification of the unauthorised extension had been properly and completely performed before completion; accordingly the purchaser (second plaintiff, nominee) was entitled to rescind and recover deposits and damages under the contract; defendants' counterclaim for forfeiture was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; defendants to refund deposits and pay liquidated damages and interest; defendants' counterclaim dismissed; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs (nisi).

Orders

  • Defendants to refund to the 2nd plaintiff deposits amounting to HK$798000.00
  • Defendants to pay liquidated damages of HK$45870.00