LEUNG KAI YIP v. HOP WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

LEUNG KAI YIP v. HOP WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Because the vendor produced the Crown lease and the intermediate root of title required by s13(1) and the purchaser only showed a bare possibility rather than a real probability of defect in the pre-intermediate title, the purchaser was not entitled to raise the requisition; alternatively the memorial supplied constituted sufficient secondary evidence and the Limitation Ordinance barred any claim by the mortgagor, therefore the vendor proved good title and the requisition was adequately answered.

Citation
LEUNG KAI YIP v. HOP WIN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
Vendor: Plaintiff; Purchaser: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2000
Case Number
HCMP1606/2000
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Determination on Title and Requisition
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; determinations sought granted that the vendor has shown a good title and the defendant's requisitions were not permitted or, in any event, were adequately answered.
Legal Topics
Requisition on Title, Proof of Title Under S13 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Mortgagee Power of Sale, Statutory Form B (new Territories Ordinance), Use of Memorials as Secondary Evidence, Limitation Period for Recovery of Land
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Land Law Mortgage Law Limitation Law Requisition on Title Proof of Title Under S13 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance Mortgagee Power of Sale +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Vendor

Defendant

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Determination on Title and Requisition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser was entitled to raise requisitions about pre-intermediate title
  2. 2 Whether vendor adequately answered defendant's requisition concerning mortgagee's power of sale
  3. 3 Whether vendor established a good title to the land

Ratio Decidendi

Because the vendor produced the Crown lease and the intermediate root of title required by s13(1) and the purchaser only showed a bare possibility rather than a real probability of defect in the pre-intermediate title, the purchaser was not entitled to raise the requisition; alternatively the memorial supplied constituted sufficient secondary evidence and the Limitation Ordinance barred any claim by the mortgagor, therefore the vendor proved good title and the requisition was adequately answered.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; determinations sought granted that the vendor has shown a good title and the defendant's requisitions were not permitted or, in any event, were adequately answered.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for the determinations sought that the vendor has shown good title to the land
  • The defendant's requisitions and objections in respect of pre-intermediate title are not upheld