KO LAN v. HOO MAN KUEN MARTIN AND ANOTHER

KO LAN v. HOO MAN KUEN MARTIN AND ANOTHER

The court held that the purchaser waived requisitions for the mortgage memorial and certificate of compliance under clause 10(1); the rectified release did not comply with statutory execution requirements (s20(2)) and so was not an effective deed releasing the legal charge; consequently the vendor had not shown a good title and the plaintiff was entitled to declarations, repayment of the deposit and costs.

Citation
KO LAN v. HOO MAN KUEN MARTIN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Ko Lan; 1st Defendant: Hoo Man Kuen Martin; 2nd Defendant: Chan Suet Chun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 1999
Case Number
HCMP4416/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Sale and Purchase of Property (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Validity of Deed of Release, Requisitions and Time‑bar Clauses, Power of Attorney and Corporate Execution, Title and Encumbrances, Waiver by Contractual Provision
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing and Property Contract Law Equity Validity of Deed of Release Requisitions and Time‑bar Clauses Power of Attorney and Corporate Execution Title and Encumbrances Waiver by Contractual Provision

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ko Lan

Plaintiff

Hoo Man Kuen Martin

1st Defendant

Chan Suet Chun

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Sale and Purchase of Property (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser's requisitions for production of mortgage memorial and certificate of compliance were waived under clause 10(1)
  2. 2 Whether the rectified release (memorial no. 7167789) constituted a valid deed releasing the legal charge
  3. 3 Whether vendor had shown a good title free from encumbrances

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the purchaser waived requisitions for the mortgage memorial and certificate of compliance under clause 10(1); the rectified release did not comply with statutory execution requirements (s20(2)) and so was not an effective deed releasing the legal charge; consequently the vendor had not shown a good title and the plaintiff was entitled to declarations, repayment of the deposit and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that requisition 2 in plaintiff's solicitors' letter of 1 June 1998 has not been sufficiently answered
  • Declaration that a good title has not been shown