LI TIN YAU v. LAU MAY YEE AND OTHERS

LI TIN YAU v. LAU MAY YEE AND OTHERS

The court held that Li proved vendor Lau breached the Agreement and that the Agreement was rescinded entitling Li to return of the deposit and part payment. Because Nip’s alleged prior agreement was unregistered, Li as a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value prevailed under the LRO; the lis pendens registered by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LI TIN YAU v. LAU MAY YEE AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: LI TIN YAU; 1st Defendant: LAU MAY YEE; 2nd Defendant: NIP KONG TAK; 3rd Defendant (discontinued): WEIR & ASSOCIATES (a firm)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 February 2012
Case Number
DCMP1012/2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff Li Tin Yau: declaration that vendor Lau breached the Agreement and rescission; declaration that Li's rights rank in priority over Nip; award for return of deposit and part payment and costs.
Legal Topics
Priority of Interests, Lis Pendens, Rescission for Breach, Registration of Instruments, Deposit Recovery, Interest on Judgment, Costs
Source Language
en
Property Law Land Registration Contract Law Equity Priority of Interests Lis Pendens Rescission for Breach Registration of Instruments +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LI TIN YAU

Plaintiff

LAU MAY YEE

1st Defendant

NIP KONG TAK

2nd Defendant

WEIR & ASSOCIATES (a firm)

3rd Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vendor breached sale agreement and whether agreement was rescinded entitling purchaser to return of deposit
  2. 2 Whether purchaser Li is a bona fide purchaser for value and has priority over a prior unregistered agreement asserted by Nip
  3. 3 Whether a registered lis pendens ranks in priority to a prior registered agreement or to an agreement registered earlier in same month

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Li proved vendor Lau breached the Agreement and that the Agreement was rescinded entitling Li to return of the deposit and part payment. Because Nip’s alleged prior agreement was unregistered, Li as a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value prevailed under the LRO; the lis pendens registered by Nip on 4 November 2005 ranked after the Agreement registered in October 2005. Therefore Li has priority to the funds in court to the extent of his entitlement; he is awarded return of HK$390,000 plus interest from commencement and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff Li Tin Yau: declaration that vendor Lau breached the Agreement and rescission; declaration that Li's rights rank in priority over Nip; award for return of deposit and part payment and costs.

Orders

  • Declaration that Lau breached the Agreement and that the Agreement was rescinded
  • Order for return of deposit and part payment to Li in the sum of HK$390000