KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD

KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD

The Court found that although a theoretical possibility of enforcement existed, the risk of the Building Authority taking action was so remote after 30 years' occupation and the Authority's apparent lack of interest that the vendor discharged the burden of showing there was no real risk; accordingly the vendor had satisfactorily answered the requisition and the purchasers were not entitled to rescind or recover their deposit.

Citation
KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Kok Chong Ho; Plaintiff: Wong Mui; Defendant: Double Value Developments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 1990
Case Number
HCMP2857/1990
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Purchasers' summons dismissed; vendors declared to have satisfactorily answered the requisition; purchasers not entitled to rescind or recover deposit.
Legal Topics
Title Objection, Unauthorised Structures, Occupation Permit, Crown Lease Forfeiture Risk, Requisition on Title, Rescission and Deposit Recovery
Source Language
EN
Property Law Conveyancing Building Regulations Civil Procedure Contract Law Title Objection Unauthorised Structures Occupation Permit +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kok Chong Ho

Plaintiff

Wong Mui

Plaintiff

Double Value Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons Under Section 12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real (as opposed to merely theoretical) risk of enforcement action by the Building Authority arising from alleged unauthorised lower‑ground flats
  2. 2 Whether the vendor satisfactorily answered the purchasers' requisition on title
  3. 3 Whether purchasers are entitled to rescind the contract and recover their deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that although a theoretical possibility of enforcement existed, the risk of the Building Authority taking action was so remote after 30 years' occupation and the Authority's apparent lack of interest that the vendor discharged the burden of showing there was no real risk; accordingly the vendor had satisfactorily answered the requisition and the purchasers were not entitled to rescind or recover their deposit.

Court Disposition

Purchasers' summons dismissed; vendors declared to have satisfactorily answered the requisition; purchasers not entitled to rescind or recover deposit.

Orders

  • Declare that the vendors have satisfactorily answered the purchasers' requisition on title.
  • If necessary, declare that the vendors have shown a good title to the property in accordance with the contract assuming no other objections.