LI SUN WAH v. LEE KWOK YIU

LI SUN WAH v. LEE KWOK YIU

The court held the defendant could not make a marketable title on the documents particularised: the 1969 Regrant created undivided tenancy in common and did not confer exclusive possession; the 1958 Deed of Mutual Covenant did not survive the expiration of the 1935 Lease and could not be construed to confer rights over the new regrant; Cap.297 did not revive a spent covenant. The defendant made no offer or steps to rectify title before completion. Accordingly plaintiff was justified in refusing to accept title, validly rescinded, and was entitled to recover the deposit plus interest and costs. The defendant's non-attendance was not a breach because plaintiff had refused to accept the title.

Citation
LI SUN WAH v. LEE KWOK YIU
Parties
Purchaser (plaintiff): Li Sun Wah; Vendor (defendant): Lee Kwok Yiu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 1984
Case Number
HCA10517/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Trial Judgment Delivered 4 Dec 1984
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the deposit paid; plaintiff entitled to rescind the Agreement
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Exclusive Possession, Rescission of Contract, Forfeiture of Deposit, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Statutory Covenants (cap.297), Estoppel
Source Language
EN
Property Contract Equity Conveyancing Title to Land Exclusive Possession Rescission of Contract 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Sun Wah

Purchaser (plaintiff)

Lee Kwok Yiu

Vendor (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Trial Judgment Delivered 4 Dec 1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor could show a marketable title including a right to exclusive possession
  2. 2 Whether the vendor's non-attendance at completion amounted to breach
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was entitled to rescind and recover the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the defendant could not make a marketable title on the documents particularised: the 1969 Regrant created undivided tenancy in common and did not confer exclusive possession; the 1958 Deed of Mutual Covenant did not survive the expiration of the 1935 Lease and could not be construed to confer rights over the new regrant; Cap.297 did not revive a spent covenant. The defendant made no offer or steps to rectify title before completion. Accordingly plaintiff was justified in refusing to accept title, validly rescinded, and was entitled to recover the deposit plus interest and costs. The defendant's non-attendance was not a breach because plaintiff had refused to accept the title.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the deposit paid; plaintiff entitled to rescind the Agreement

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of 65000 with interest and costs