WONG YIU TING v. KWOK WING CHIU AND ANOTHER

WONG YIU TING v. KWOK WING CHIU AND ANOTHER

The requisition was adequately answered because evidence of the parties' common intention and conveyancing undertakings established that the 1998 assignment did not take effect until the premium had been paid; therefore there was no breach of Section 17B and the title was good.

Citation
WONG YIU TING v. KWOK WING CHIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Purchaser: Plaintiff; Vendors: Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2008
Case Number
HCA729/2008
Procedural Posture
Order 14 and Order 14 a Application in Conveyancing Dispute (writ Action Filed) / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Requisition relating to the 1998 assignment held to have been adequately answered; 1998 assignment did not take effect until premium was paid; title found to be good.
Legal Topics
Title Defects, Requisition Answers, Delivery of Deed, Section 17 B Housing Ordinance, Vendor and Purchaser Summons
Source Language
EN
Property Law Conveyancing Civil Procedure Housing Law Title Defects Requisition Answers Delivery of Deed Section 17 B Housing Ordinance +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Purchaser

Defendants

Vendors

Procedural Posture

Order 14 and Order 14 a Application in Conveyancing Dispute (writ Action Filed) / Chambers Hearing and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requisition relating to the 1998 assignment was adequately answered
  2. 2 Whether the 1998 assignment was void under Section 17B of the Housing Ordinance because premium was paid after the assignment date

Ratio Decidendi

The requisition was adequately answered because evidence of the parties' common intention and conveyancing undertakings established that the 1998 assignment did not take effect until the premium had been paid; therefore there was no breach of Section 17B and the title was good.

Court Disposition

Requisition relating to the 1998 assignment held to have been adequately answered; 1998 assignment did not take effect until premium was paid; title found to be good.

Orders

  • Requisition relating to the 1998 assignment held to have been adequately answered by the Defendants' solicitors.
  • Title to the Property is valid; the 1998 assignment did not take effect until the premium was paid and there is no void assignment under Section 17B.