WIDE HOLLY INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SUPER CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

WIDE HOLLY INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SUPER CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Minor differences between signatures on the 1983 and 1989 instruments were explicable by time and speed; passport numbers can change and passports were produced at the relevant signings; on the evidence the vendors discharged their obligation to prove title and no further statutory declarations or 'proper conveyancing proof' were required, so a declaration of good title was warranted.

Citation
WIDE HOLLY INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SUPER CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
Vendor: WIDE HOLLY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; Vendor: FANDIN COMPANY LIMITED; Purchaser: SUPER CROWN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 November 1994
Case Number
HCMP2740/1994
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (property Sale) / Judgment Delivered (final)
Outcome
Declaration that the plaintiffs have shown good title to Rooms 2208 and 2209, 22/F International Building, 141 Des Voeux Road, Central, in accordance with the sale and purchase agreements dated 6 April 1994.
Legal Topics
Title Proof, Due Execution of Instruments, Presumption of Due Execution (s23), Statutory Declaration, Vendor and Purchaser Procedure
Source Language
EN
Conveyancing Property Law Evidence Contract Law Title Proof Due Execution of Instruments Presumption of Due Execution (s23) Statutory Declaration +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WIDE HOLLY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

Vendor

FANDIN COMPANY LIMITED

Vendor

SUPER CROWN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (property Sale) / Judgment Delivered (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors had proved their title to Rooms 2208 and 2209 by establishing due execution of key instruments
  2. 2 Whether differences in signatures and inconsistent passport numbers created reasonable doubt as to execution
  3. 3 Whether the presumption in section 23 of the Property and Conveyancing Ordinance should be applied

Ratio Decidendi

Minor differences between signatures on the 1983 and 1989 instruments were explicable by time and speed; passport numbers can change and passports were produced at the relevant signings; on the evidence the vendors discharged their obligation to prove title and no further statutory declarations or 'proper conveyancing proof' were required, so a declaration of good title was warranted.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the plaintiffs have shown good title to Rooms 2208 and 2209, 22/F International Building, 141 Des Voeux Road, Central, in accordance with the sale and purchase agreements dated 6 April 1994.

Orders

  • Declare that the plaintiffs have shown a good title to Rooms 2208 and 2209, 22/F International Building, 141 Des Voeux Road, Central, in accordance with the sale and purchase agreements dated 6 April 1994.
  • Parties are permitted to proceed to completion in accordance with the terms of the sale and purchase agreements.