IP MING WAI AND ANOTHER v. WORLD FORD DEVELOPMENT LTD

IP MING WAI AND ANOTHER v. WORLD FORD DEVELOPMENT LTD

On the facts the conveyancing clerk did not object to the short delay and the 24 minute late delivery caused no detriment to the defendant; the delay was trivial and the de minimis principle applies; accordingly the defendant was not entitled to rescind or forfeit the deposit and plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance.

Citation
IP MING WAI AND ANOTHER v. WORLD FORD DEVELOPMENT LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: IP MING WAI; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAU PUI SANG; Defendant: WORLD FORD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 November 1992
Case Number
HCA6388/1991
Procedural Posture
Action for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale and Purchase of Land / Judgment (high Court, Trial)
Outcome
Specific performance granted in favour of the plaintiffs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; deposit not forfeited.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Time of the Essence, De Minimis Non Curat Lex, Forfeiture of Deposit, Rescission, Ostensible Authority
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Time of the Essence De Minimis Non Curat Lex Forfeiture of Deposit +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IP MING WAI

1st Plaintiff

CHAU PUI SANG

2nd Plaintiff

WORLD FORD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Specific Performance of Contract for Sale and Purchase of Land / Judgment (high Court, Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vendor was entitled to rescind and forfeit deposit for a 24 minute delay when time was of the essence
  2. 2 Whether the de minimis principle applies to breaches of time‑stipulations in land sale contracts
  3. 3 Whether the conveyancing clerk had authority or ostensible authority to grant an indulgence or extension

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the conveyancing clerk did not object to the short delay and the 24 minute late delivery caused no detriment to the defendant; the delay was trivial and the de minimis principle applies; accordingly the defendant was not entitled to rescind or forfeit the deposit and plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Specific performance granted in favour of the plaintiffs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; deposit not forfeited.

Orders

  • Decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs ordering completion of the sale pursuant to the contract
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed and defendant not entitled to forfeit the deposit