LEE HOI CHING v. LOK FUK DING

LEE HOI CHING v. LOK FUK DING

Defendant failed to provide a satisfactory answer to a properly raised requisition about a memorialised Building Order which prima facie encumbered title; Plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of the deposit and damages with interest and to a lien on the property until payment; costs ordered against the defendant (nisi). The court did not finally resolve broader statutory questions about validity of service/registration but found the vendor's answer insufficient and relief therefore warranted.

Citation
LEE HOI CHING v. LOK FUK DING
Parties
Plaintiff / Purchaser: LEE HOI CHING; Defendant / Vendor: LOK FUK DING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2008
Case Number
HCMP1678/2007
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Section 12, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap.219) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff. Originating Summons granted in part: rescission declarations, return of deposit, award of damages, interest, lien and costs nisi ordered.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Vendor Title Obligations, Requisitions on Title, Building Orders and Memorial Registration, Interpretation of 'owner' Under Buildings Ordinance, Warranties in Sale Agreements, Lien for Deposit and Damages
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Statutory Building Enforcement Land Registration Contract Law Rescission of Contract Vendor Title Obligations Requisitions on Title +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE HOI CHING

Plaintiff / Purchaser

LOK FUK DING

Defendant / Vendor

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Section 12, Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (cap.219) / Judgment (high Court, Court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor adequately answered a requisition about a Building Order registered against the property
  2. 2 Whether the Building Order was validly served and/or validly registered against the vendor's title
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser lawfully rescinded the sale agreement for failure to show good title

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to provide a satisfactory answer to a properly raised requisition about a memorialised Building Order which prima facie encumbered title; Plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of the deposit and damages with interest and to a lien on the property until payment; costs ordered against the defendant (nisi). The court did not finally resolve broader statutory questions about validity of service/registration but found the vendor's answer insufficient and relief therefore warranted.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff. Originating Summons granted in part: rescission declarations, return of deposit, award of damages, interest, lien and costs nisi ordered.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Plaintiff lawfully rescinded the sale and purchase agreement (with deletion of reference to requisition no.5) and declarations as sought in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Originating Summons
  • Order for return of deposit to Plaintiff: HKD 88800