TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

On the facts the vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of Office 2B, Unit 5C and Unit 5D because the chattels and debris substantially interfered with occupation; the vendors failed to satisfactorily answer Requisition 2 (unexplained Certificate addressed to Ying Fung raising real risk of third party interest)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1506
Parties
Plaintiff / Purchaser: TO YUNG SING HERMAN; 1st Defendant / Vendor: SZETO CHAK MEI; 2nd Defendant / Vendor: LIU CHI PING DAVID; 3rd Defendant / Vendor: LILY KOESNO also known as KOESNO LILY CLOTILDE; 4th Defendant / Vendor: KOESNO EDI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 2018
Case Number
HCMP2741/2016
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing / Property Dispute) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Declarations made for purchaser: vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of specified units; requisitions 2 and 6 not satisfactorily answered; vendors failed to show good title; purchaser entitled to accept repudiation and terminate the agreement; order nisi for costs made.
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Title Defects and Requisitions, Mandatory Building Inspection Schemes (mbis/mwis), Blot on Title, Rescission of Contract, Specific Performance, Contractual Warranties
Source Language
en
Conveyancing Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law (building Ordinance) Vacant Possession Title Defects and Requisitions Mandatory Building Inspection Schemes (mbis/mwis) +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TO YUNG SING HERMAN

Plaintiff / Purchaser

SZETO CHAK MEI

1st Defendant / Vendor

LIU CHI PING DAVID

2nd Defendant / Vendor

LILY KOESNO also known as KOESNO LILY CLOTILDE

3rd Defendant / Vendor

KOESNO EDI

4th Defendant / Vendor

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons (conveyancing / Property Dispute) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of Office 2B, Unit 5C and Unit 5D
  2. 2 Whether Requisition 2 (certificate addressed to Ying Fung / possible third party interest) was satisfactorily answered
  3. 3 Whether Requisition 6 (MBIS and MWIS notices) was satisfactorily answered and whether the notices constitute a blot on title

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of Office 2B, Unit 5C and Unit 5D because the chattels and debris substantially interfered with occupation; the vendors failed to satisfactorily answer Requisition 2 (unexplained Certificate addressed to Ying Fung raising real risk of third party interest) and Requisition 6 (undischarged MBIS/MWIS notices which constitute a potential blot on title under the Building Ordinance and s33(9)); accordingly the vendors failed to show good title and the purchaser was entitled to accept the vendors' repudiation and terminate the agreement.

Court Disposition

Declarations made for purchaser: vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of specified units; requisitions 2 and 6 not satisfactorily answered; vendors failed to show good title; purchaser entitled to accept repudiation and terminate the agreement; order nisi for costs made.

Orders

  • Declare that the vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of Office 2B, Unit 5C and Unit 5D
  • Declare that Requisition 2 (Ying Fung interest) and Requisition 6 (MBIS/MWIS notices) were not satisfactorily answered by the vendors