LEE WAI KIE AND OTHERS v. EMA REALTY LTD.

LEE WAI KIE AND OTHERS v. EMA REALTY LTD.

The vendor's solicitors did not answer the requisitions satisfactorily or within a reasonable time, produced inconsistent and confusing documents at the last hour, and insisted on completion thereby breaching the contract; consequently the purchasers were entitled to the return of the deposit and recovery of wasted expenses and costs.

Citation
LEE WAI KIE AND OTHERS v. EMA REALTY LTD.
Parties
Plaintiffs (purchasers): Lee Wai Kie and Lee Hi Yee Cynthia; Defendant (vendor): EMA Realty Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 December 1998
Case Number
HCMP2335/1998
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment Delivered (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Requisitions on Title, Nomination, Completion, Forfeiture of Deposit, Estoppel, Stamp Duty Adjudication
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Stamp Duty Law Requisitions on Title Nomination Completion Forfeiture of Deposit +2 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Wai Kie and Lee Hi Yee Cynthia

Plaintiffs (purchasers)

EMA Realty Limited

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment Delivered (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor answered requisitions satisfactorily and within a reasonable time before completion
  2. 2 Whether the documents produced (nomination and variations of provisional agreement) were authentic and answered the requisition
  3. 3 Whether the vendor's insistence on completion despite unresolved requisitions amounted to breach entitling the purchasers to return of deposit and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The vendor's solicitors did not answer the requisitions satisfactorily or within a reasonable time, produced inconsistent and confusing documents at the last hour, and insisted on completion thereby breaching the contract; consequently the purchasers were entitled to the return of the deposit and recovery of wasted expenses and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Return of the deposit to the Plaintiffs
  • Payment to the Plaintiffs of wasted expenditure: estate agent's fees, conveyancing costs and stamp duties paid as claimed in the summons