WORLDFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. YOUNG KING ASIA LIMITED

WORLDFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. YOUNG KING ASIA LIMITED

The plaintiff, by answering the requisition on 26 March without reserving any objection to lateness, waived its right to object to the late requisition; the Buildings Department's reply undermined the plaintiff's assertion of lawful user and left the requisition unanswered; therefore the plaintiff failed to show good title and the originating summons must be dismissed.

Citation
WORLDFULL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. YOUNG KING ASIA LIMITED
Parties
Plaintiff (vendor): Worldfull Investments Limited; Defendant (purchaser): Young King Asia Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 1996
Case Number
HCMP1826/1996
Procedural Posture
Vendor/purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered 11 November 1996
Outcome
Originating summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Title, Requisitions to Title, Unauthorised User, Waiver by Conduct, Estoppel, Time Limits for Requisitions, Enforcement Orders
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Building Regulation Contract Title Requisitions to Title Unauthorised User Waiver by Conduct +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Worldfull Investments Limited

Plaintiff (vendor)

Young King Asia Limited

Defendant (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Vendor/purchaser Summons (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Judgment Delivered 11 November 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requisitions were raised out of time and the legal effect of the vendor's subsequent conduct in answering without reservation
  2. 2 Whether the vendor sufficiently answered the requisition concerning an unauthorised user contrary to the Occupation Permit
  3. 3 Whether the Building Authority had knowledge of or waived the unauthorised user such that enforcement was unlikely

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, by answering the requisition on 26 March without reserving any objection to lateness, waived its right to object to the late requisition; the Buildings Department's reply undermined the plaintiff's assertion of lawful user and left the requisition unanswered; therefore the plaintiff failed to show good title and the originating summons must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Originating summons dismissed

Orders

  • Originating summons dismissed.