CHEUNG FUK YU DANNY AND ANOTHER v. VU POI VAN

CHEUNG FUK YU DANNY AND ANOTHER v. VU POI VAN

The vendor failed to prove good title because she did not satisfactorily answer critical requisitions: the DLO Exemption Documents were ineffective to exempt the requirement for an Occupation Permit in absence of evidence of compliance with Part 1 dimensional/structural requirements (notably wall thickness) and the risk of Building Department enforcement was not disproved beyond reasonable doubt; the right of way requisition went to the root of the contract and was not waived; therefore the purchasers validly rescinded the Agreement and are entitled to return of deposits; other requisitions (company chop on Discharge Receipt and production of originals for loan/second charge) were...

Citation
CHEUNG FUK YU DANNY AND ANOTHER v. VU POI VAN
Parties
Purchasers: 1st and 2nd plaintiffs; Vendor: defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Case Number
DCCJ2817/2013
Procedural Posture
Conveyancing (sale and Purchase) Dispute / Trial Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed in part: Agreement rescinded and deposits ordered repaid; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Good Title, Requisitions on Title, Occupation Permit, Certificate of Exemption, Forfeiture of Deposit, Rescission, Right of Way, Proof of Execution
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Building Regulations Good Title Requisitions on Title Occupation Permit Certificate of Exemption +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st and 2nd plaintiffs

Purchasers

defendant

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Conveyancing (sale and Purchase) Dispute / Trial Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor proved good title by satisfactorily answering requisitions on title
  2. 2 Whether Exemption Documents issued by District Lands Office validly exempted requirement for Occupation Permit under BO(ANT) given lack of evidence of wall thickness
  3. 3 Whether risk of enforcement by Building Authority had been disproved beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor failed to prove good title because she did not satisfactorily answer critical requisitions: the DLO Exemption Documents were ineffective to exempt the requirement for an Occupation Permit in absence of evidence of compliance with Part 1 dimensional/structural requirements (notably wall thickness) and the risk of Building Department enforcement was not disproved beyond reasonable doubt; the right of way requisition went to the root of the contract and was not waived; therefore the purchasers validly rescinded the Agreement and are entitled to return of deposits; other requisitions (company chop on Discharge Receipt and production of originals for loan/second charge) were...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed in part: Agreement rescinded and deposits ordered repaid; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant failed to prove good title and the Agreement is rescinded
  • Order for repayment of deposits of HK$290,000 to the plaintiffs