CHINAWELL MANAGEMENT LTD v. STRONG HUGE CORPORATION LTD

CHINAWELL MANAGEMENT LTD v. STRONG HUGE CORPORATION LTD

Defendant answered both requisitions without reserving its right to object to their lateness and therefore waived any timeliness objection; defendant failed to satisfactorily answer the Illegal Structure and Notice at Entrance requisitions and did not rebut the inference of unauthorized structures or dispel risk of third party claims; therefore defendant failed to show good title, repudiated the Agreement and plaintiff was entitled to rescind and recover the deposits and consequential losses; costs to be assessed.

Citation
CHINAWELL MANAGEMENT LTD v. STRONG HUGE CORPORATION LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (purchaser): Chinawell Management Limited; Defendant (vendor): Strong Huge Corporation Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Case Number
HCMP2246/2010
Procedural Posture
Vendor Purchaser Summons (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance, Chambers)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff. Declarations made that defendant failed to satisfactorily answer the two requisitions, failed to show/give good title, repudiated the Agreement and plaintiff validly rescinded; plaintiff entitled to return of deposits and assessment of losses; costs order nisi.
Legal Topics
Title Defects, Illegal Structures, Requisitions and Timing, Waiver and Without Prejudice, Rescission for Breach, Forfeiture of Deposits, Vacant Possession, Encumbrance
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Title Defects Illegal Structures Requisitions and Timing Waiver and Without Prejudice +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chinawell Management Limited

Plaintiff (purchaser)

Strong Huge Corporation Limited

Defendant (vendor)

Procedural Posture

Vendor Purchaser Summons (conveyancing) / Judgment (court of First Instance, Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant satisfactorily answered two requisitions (illegal structure and notice at entrance)
  2. 2 Whether defendant demonstrated good title to the property
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff was entitled to rescind the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant answered both requisitions without reserving its right to object to their lateness and therefore waived any timeliness objection; defendant failed to satisfactorily answer the Illegal Structure and Notice at Entrance requisitions and did not rebut the inference of unauthorized structures or dispel risk of third party claims; therefore defendant failed to show good title, repudiated the Agreement and plaintiff was entitled to rescind and recover the deposits and consequential losses; costs to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff. Declarations made that defendant failed to satisfactorily answer the two requisitions, failed to show/give good title, repudiated the Agreement and plaintiff validly rescinded; plaintiff entitled to return of deposits and assessment of losses; costs order nisi.

Orders

  • Declaration that defendant did not satisfactorily answer the Illegal Structure Requisition and the Notice at Entrance Requisition
  • Declaration that defendant failed to show and/or give good title to the Properties