LAW HING CHO AND ANOTHER v. PARKER PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS

LAW HING CHO AND ANOTHER v. PARKER PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS

The court held that the plaintiffs proved by convincing and cogent evidence that a common mistake existed in the conveyancing documents such that the documents mis‑described the unit actually sold and possessed; the mistake permeated subsequent transactions and no adequate alternative remedy existed, therefore the court ordered rectification of the specified documents to give effect to the parties' true agreement.

Citation
LAW HING CHO AND ANOTHER v. PARKER PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Law Hing Cho; 2nd Plaintiff: Wong Yuet Kai; 1st Defendant: Parker Properties Limited; 2nd Defendant: Keep Mount (Holdings) Limited; 3rd Defendant: Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2003
Case Number
HCMP4331/2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Rectification of Conveyancing Documents (property) / Reasons for Decision on Application (court of First Instance, in Chambers)
Outcome
Application for rectification granted
Legal Topics
Rectification, Common Mistake, Constructive Notice, Prior Agreement, Mortgagee Rights
Source Language
EN
Property Law Equity Conveyancing Land Registration Rectification Common Mistake Constructive Notice Prior Agreement +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Law Hing Cho

1st Plaintiff

Wong Yuet Kai

2nd Plaintiff

Parker Properties Limited

1st Defendant

Keep Mount (Holdings) Limited

2nd Defendant

Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Rectification of Conveyancing Documents (property) / Reasons for Decision on Application (court of First Instance, in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executed sale and conveyancing documents contained a common mistake such that they failed to record the parties' true agreement
  2. 2 Whether rectification is available given intervening purchasers and a subsequent mortgagee and whether the plaintiffs have adequate alternative remedies
  3. 3 What standard and degree of proof is required to rectify registered land instruments subject to constructive notice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs proved by convincing and cogent evidence that a common mistake existed in the conveyancing documents such that the documents mis‑described the unit actually sold and possessed; the mistake permeated subsequent transactions and no adequate alternative remedy existed, therefore the court ordered rectification of the specified documents to give effect to the parties' true agreement.

Court Disposition

Application for rectification granted

Orders

  • Rectification of the documents sought in the plaintiffs' notice dated 28 January 2002 to correct the mis‑identification of the shops as described in the Reasons for Decision
  • No order as to costs