FUNG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER v. SOLAR TOWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

FUNG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER v. SOLAR TOWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Recorder Kwok held that Requisition No.10 had not been satisfactorily answered during the second stage where material and corroborated enquiries showed the purported attesting witness was not a notary public and the Vendor failed to disclose identity and relevant facts; accordingly the Vendor had not shown good title, the Purchasers were entitled to annul the Agreement, accepted repudiation, and were entitled to return of deposits, stamp duty, damages, costs, lien and interest; the Vendor's counterclaim was dismissed.

Citation
FUNG YEUNG HING AND ANOTHER v. SOLAR TOWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Fung Yeung Hing; 2nd Plaintiff: Fung Yun Ho; Defendant: Solar Town Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 1999
Case Number
HCMP6059/1998
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs; declarations and monetary orders granted; Vendor's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Requisitions on Title, Power of Attorney, Attestation of Deeds, Good Title, Repudiation, Rectification
Source Language
EN
Property Conveyancing Contract Civil Procedure Requisitions on Title Power of Attorney Attestation of Deeds Good Title +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Yeung Hing

1st Plaintiff

Fung Yun Ho

2nd Plaintiff

Solar Town Development Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Requisitions Nos.9 and 10 were sufficiently answered by the Vendor
  2. 2 Whether the Vendor had shown good title where requisitions raised material doubts
  3. 3 Whether attestation of the Power of Attorney and identity of attesting witness needed proof

Ratio Decidendi

Recorder Kwok held that Requisition No.10 had not been satisfactorily answered during the second stage where material and corroborated enquiries showed the purported attesting witness was not a notary public and the Vendor failed to disclose identity and relevant facts; accordingly the Vendor had not shown good title, the Purchasers were entitled to annul the Agreement, accepted repudiation, and were entitled to return of deposits, stamp duty, damages, costs, lien and interest; the Vendor's counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs; declarations and monetary orders granted; Vendor's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that requisition numbered 10 in Clayton Wong & Co.'s letter of 16 July 1998 in respect of title to the Property has not been sufficiently answered by the Defendant
  • Declaration that good title to the Property has not been shown by the Defendant in accordance with the Agreement and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to annul the Agreement