LEE PAK LAM AND ANOTHER v. SHEK FUNG KIU

LEE PAK LAM AND ANOTHER v. SHEK FUNG KIU

On the evidence (same English name, same Hong Kong identity card number, solicitor attestation, visual similarity of signatures in Chinese cursive and other attendant documentary facts) the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person who signed the 1991 documents was the same person who signed the 1994 documents; accordingly the vendor proved good title, the plaintiffs breached the sale and purchase agreement, the vendor validly rescinded the agreement and forfeited the deposit, and the plaintiffs are liable for damages and costs.

Citation
LEE PAK LAM AND ANOTHER v. SHEK FUNG KIU
Parties
Purchasers (applicants): Purchasers; Vendor (defendant): Shek Fung Kiu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2007
Case Number
HCMP2157/2006
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing) / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiffs' originating summons dismissed; defendant's counterclaim/counter-notice granted in part
Legal Topics
Title Dispute, Identity of Signatories, Requisition, Forfeiture of Deposit, Rescission, Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Contract Civil Procedure Title Dispute Identity of Signatories Requisition Forfeiture of Deposit +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Purchasers

Purchasers (applicants)

Shek Fung Kiu

Vendor (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing) / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the person who executed the 1991 documents is the same person who executed the 1994 documents
  2. 2 Whether the vendor has proved good title beyond reasonable doubt under Section 12 Cap.219
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs lawfully repudiated or breached the sale and purchase agreement

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (same English name, same Hong Kong identity card number, solicitor attestation, visual similarity of signatures in Chinese cursive and other attendant documentary facts) the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person who signed the 1991 documents was the same person who signed the 1994 documents; accordingly the vendor proved good title, the plaintiffs breached the sale and purchase agreement, the vendor validly rescinded the agreement and forfeited the deposit, and the plaintiffs are liable for damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' originating summons dismissed; defendant's counterclaim/counter-notice granted in part

Orders

  • Declare defendant proved good title to the suit property beyond reasonable doubt
  • Declare plaintiffs breached the formal sale and purchase agreement dated 22 September 2006 by failing to complete on the scheduled date