LEE YUEN CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI MING AND ANOTHER

LEE YUEN CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI MING AND ANOTHER

Purchasers were entitled to rescind because the vendors failed to answer the primary requisition satisfactorily by not identifying or explaining why the demand letter constituted the modification letter and failed to produce the original or a proper certified true copy as required by s.13 CPO, thereby failing to prove good title at completion.

Citation
LEE YUEN CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI MING AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LEE YUEN CHEUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN SHUK YING; 1st Defendant: CHAN CHI MING; 2nd Defendant: HO YUEN SIU MAY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 1998
Case Number
HCA12747/1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment for Return of Deposit (sale of Property) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application; Rescission of Agreement
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs; Agreement rescinded; order made in terms of the Minutes of Judgment
Legal Topics
Requisition on Title, Government Lease Modification, Certified True Copy (s.13 Cpo), Rescission for Failure to Prove Title, Deed of Surrender
Source Language
EN
Property Conveyancing Contract Civil Procedure Requisition on Title Government Lease Modification Certified True Copy (s.13 Cpo) Rescission for Failure to Prove Title +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE YUEN CHEUNG

1st Plaintiff

CHAN SHUK YING

2nd Plaintiff

CHAN CHI MING

1st Defendant

HO YUEN SIU MAY

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment for Return of Deposit (sale of Property) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application; Rescission of Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors satisfactorily answered the purchasers' requisition for the modification letter dated 15 August 1957
  2. 2 Whether the vendors produced the original or a proper certified true copy as required by s.13 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap.219)
  3. 3 Whether the purchasers were entitled to rescind the Agreement for failure to prove title at completion

Ratio Decidendi

Purchasers were entitled to rescind because the vendors failed to answer the primary requisition satisfactorily by not identifying or explaining why the demand letter constituted the modification letter and failed to produce the original or a proper certified true copy as required by s.13 CPO, thereby failing to prove good title at completion.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs; Agreement rescinded; order made in terms of the Minutes of Judgment

Orders

  • Order in terms of the Minutes of Judgment: Agreement rescinded; judgment for Plaintiffs on summary judgment application (return of deposits)