Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conveyancing and property ordinance s3

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2024

FAIRWING INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAU SAU NGOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2068/2018

The court found on balance of probabilities that an oral agreement existed by which Siu (for the Plaintiff) promised Chau the beneficial ownership of the Premises upon completion and payment of premium; Chau relied to her detriment (occupation, refurbishment, procuring loans) and it would be unconscionable to deny her the beneficial interest; therefore proprietary estoppel and a common intention constructive trust arose in her favour. The Plaintiff's claim against Chau was dismissed. The court granted specific performance against the 2nd Defendant in accordance with the 2009 Agreement and Sup…
16 Dec 2019

LEUNG SHING YIN AMBROSE v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1671
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16/2017

On the objective evidence (logbook entries, delivery of draft agreements bearing company chop, completion of requested works and conduct), a concluded oral agreement existed; the defendant established sufficient part performance to render the oral agreement enforceable notwithstanding s3(1) CPO; the plaintiff repudiated the agreement and the defendant accepted repudiation on or by 8 August 2016; defendant entitled to forfeit the converted deposit of HK$90,000; defendant proved no consequential loss and is awarded nominal damages HK$1,000; net balance of HK$1,000 to be returned to plaintiff; n…
6 Dec 2018

MEHUL GIRISHBHAI TANNA v. AVIJIT NAYAK

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2683
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1335/2018

The defendant improperly sought to require the plaintiff to plead evidence rather than material facts contrary to Order 18 rule 7; the Statement of Claim pleaded sufficient particulars for the claim; the alleged oral agreement related to distribution of cash and not the sale or disposition of land, so s3 Cap 219 did not apply; accordingly the strike out application failed and must be dismissed with costs.
23 Nov 2015

JOIN WIN HOLDINGS LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOIN WIN HOLDINGS LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2015

Because the plaintiff's asserted contract was oral and failed the s3 CPO writing requirement and there was no credible case of part performance or readiness to complete, there was no real prospect that specific performance would be ordered and no equitable interest affecting the land; accordingly the notice of appeal lis pendens was wrongly registered and was vacated, and because the appellant was impecunious and had no reasonable prospect of success the court ordered security for costs of HKD120,000, stayed the appeal pending payment and provided that failure to pay would result in dismissal…
13 Nov 2015

LO LEE, MARILYN (also known as MARILYN LEE) v. GOEL ARUN KUMAR

Citation

LO LEE, MARILYN (also known as MARILYN LEE) v. GOEL ARUN KUMAR
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3608/2015

The court held there was no enforceable written or oral contract for sale: the solicitors' correspondence was expressly 'subject to contract' and not a signed memorandum admitting an earlier oral contract; the acts relied on by defendant (short fixed tenancy, payment of deposits, occupation and rent) were neutral or equivocal and did not constitute part performance. Consequently there was no triable defense and summary judgment for possession and strike out of the counterclaim was appropriate.
11 May 2012

LIN JIAN CHUN v. LIN XIU MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

LIN JIAN CHUN v. LIN XIU MEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP157/2012

The judge's factual findings that the late Mr Ho and the defendants failed to establish exclusive and continuous possession and the requisite intention to possess were supported by the evidence; legal arguments raised post-trial (including reliance on pleaded tenancies and s3 Cap 219) did not show a reasonable prospect of success and late amendments were not justified; credibility findings were unassailable on appeal; accordingly the statutory threshold for leave to appeal was not met and leave was refused.
2 Apr 2001

CHAN HUNG TUEN v. THE DAIWA BANK LTD.

Citation

CHAN HUNG TUEN v. THE DAIWA BANK LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA750/2000

The court allowed amendment to plead proprietary estoppel and held that the pleaded facts, including defendant's alleged promise and the plaintiff's reliance (occupying, paying management fees, maintaining the property), were sufficient to raise a reasonable cause of action in equity distinct from a written contract; accordingly the Master's strike out order was set aside and leave to amend granted to proceed to trial on those pleadings.

Hong Kong Case Law

FAIRWING INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAU SAU NGOR AND ANOTHER

LEUNG SHING YIN AMBROSE v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

MEHUL GIRISHBHAI TANNA v. AVIJIT NAYAK

JOIN WIN HOLDINGS LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER

LO LEE, MARILYN (also known as MARILYN LEE) v. GOEL ARUN KUMAR

LIN JIAN CHUN v. LIN XIU MEI AND OTHERS

CHAN HUNG TUEN v. THE DAIWA BANK LTD.