WIDE LINK LTD. v. TAM SING CHEONG AND OTHERS

WIDE LINK LTD. v. TAM SING CHEONG AND OTHERS

The court found clauses 15A and 15B contained false and material statements regarding the tenancy which induced the plaintiff to enter the PASP; s.12 CPO gives the court power to order rescission and repayment of deposits; defendants failed to show estoppel or loss of right to rescind and were in repudiatory breach, entitling plaintiff to rescind and recover the deposits with interest.

Citation
WIDE LINK LTD. v. TAM SING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Wide Link Limited; 1st Defendant: Tam Sing Cheong; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Cheung; 3rd Defendant: Tai King Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 April 1999
Case Number
HCMP1102/1998
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (originating Summons Under S.12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) / Judgment on Originating Summons
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff: declaration of entitlement to rescind; order for rescission; order for repayment of deposits with interest; costs nisi to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Rescission, Deposit Repayment, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction Under S.12 CPO, Estoppel, Specific Performance
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Equity Conveyancing Law Misrepresentation Law Rescission Deposit Repayment Misrepresentation +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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wide Link Limited

Plaintiff

Tam Sing Cheong

1st Defendant

Cheung Cheung

2nd Defendant

Tai King Wah

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (originating Summons Under S.12 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance) / Judgment on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in clauses 15A and 15B amounted to actionable misrepresentations
  2. 2 Whether defendants breached the PASP by failing to disclose head-lease and sub-lease arrangements
  3. 3 Whether the Court under s.12 CPO had jurisdiction to order rescission and repayment of deposits

Ratio Decidendi

The court found clauses 15A and 15B contained false and material statements regarding the tenancy which induced the plaintiff to enter the PASP; s.12 CPO gives the court power to order rescission and repayment of deposits; defendants failed to show estoppel or loss of right to rescind and were in repudiatory breach, entitling plaintiff to rescind and recover the deposits with interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff: declaration of entitlement to rescind; order for rescission; order for repayment of deposits with interest; costs nisi to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 15 September 1997 in respect of G/F No.138 Wan Chai Road.
  • Order for rescission of the Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase.