Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confirmor sale

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2016

ASIA PROPERTY AGENCY CO., LTD v. CHEUNG WUN YEE JAMIE

Citation

ASIA PROPERTY AGENCY CO., LTD v. CHEUNG WUN YEE JAMIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA298/2013

On the balance of probabilities the court found there was no instruction by Mak and Cheung on 14 March 2012 to put forward a $15,000,000 offer; there was insufficient and not cogent evidence of a conspiracy or deceit. Clause 4 of the supplemental agreement disclosed Hui's interest and no breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to vitiate the sale was made out; accordingly Asia Property was entitled to commission and judgment was entered for Asia Property.
1 Apr 2010

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2009

By the time the purchaser rescinded (about 4:40 p.m.) the vendor had already committed anticipatory breach by offering a different and smaller unit than contracted; therefore the Camberra midnight-rule principle did not apply and the appellant's appeal failed; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in awarding costs globally and refusing to fragment costs.
3 Apr 2009

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1540/2005

On the crucial factual issues the Court found that the unit offered on 22 July 2005 materially differed from the certified plan (area shortfall, shape and window exclusion, partitions single not double), that Banhart thereby repudiated the head agreement, Brightland lawfully accepted that repudiation and Crowning Success lawfully accepted Brightland's resulting repudiation of the sub-sale; Brightland also failed to show good title as requisitions (Polytown consent) were unanswered; therefore relief was confined to return of deposits and contractual damages calculated arithmetically; an equita…
2 Jul 1999

NEWTECH RICH LIMITED v. CHAN SHUK YIN ADA AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEWTECH RICH LIMITED v. CHAN SHUK YIN ADA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8726/1997

The Provisional Agreement, read objectively and in light of its terms (notably the phrase 'in the manner herein contained'), manifested an intention that novation (change of purchaser name) was the only method to effect the sale; the developer's refusal to agree to novation made performance impossible and the contract was therefore frustrated, entitling the Plaintiff to return of the HK$500,000 initial deposit and defeating the Defendants' counterclaim.

Hong Kong Case Law

ASIA PROPERTY AGENCY CO., LTD v. CHEUNG WUN YEE JAMIE

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

NEWTECH RICH LIMITED v. CHAN SHUK YIN ADA AND ANOTHER