8 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's proposed grounds were irrelevant to the judge's reasons, contradicted by prior binding orders, internally inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, and thus lacked a reasonable prospect of success; further, the defendant's persistent failure to comply with court directions justified determination on the papers.
31 May 2024
Defendant plainly failed to comply with the mandatory completion order and actively refused performance (occupied property and supported third‑party writs); her belated, unsworn and implausible allegations could not reopen or set aside the prior order; accordingly it was just to dissolve the specific performance order, terminate the contract and award damages in lieu together with return of deposit and declaration of purchaser's lien.
9 Jan 2023
The court awarded damages to the plaintiff calculated as the difference between the market value of the property at the date of judgment entered (adopted at HK$5,800,000) and the contract price (HK$2,450,000) totaling HK$3,350,000, plus mesne profits from 30 March 2012 to 6 January 2022 of HK$1,441,800, allowed recovery of conveyancing expenses HK$48,950, disallowed recovery of estate agent commission by the plaintiff, awarded interest at judgment rate from 6 January 2022, and granted an equitable lien over the property and original title deeds to secure the assessed damages, interest and cos…
14 Feb 2012
The appeal was allowed in part: the commercial judge did not err in permitting the amendments or in giving valuation directions generally, nor was there denial of a fair hearing; however, because the late pleaded head of loss in paragraph 35(5) risked unfairness by prejudicing defendants' preparation, paragraph 35(5) should be adjourned/hived off for further directions to be sought after the outcome of the imminent trial; costs of the appeal (including applications for leave) were awarded to the defendants with a certificate for two counsel.
27 Apr 2009
Plaintiff was not entitled to assess damages at date of judgment because she did not act reasonably to preserve or obtain specific performance; however the 1st Defendant breached equitable duties and a forced mortgagee sale realised a net gain which equity permits to be partially disgorged, so a Wrotham Park style remedy was appropriate in the circumstances and damages were fixed at HKD 260000 plus interest, with return of deposits and specified interest, and no separate award for wasted conveyancing costs.
12 Nov 2008
Vendor's replies did not satisfactorily answer the requisition by the completion date because they failed to address the purchaser's legitimate point and caused a misapprehension that required clarification; therefore purchaser was not in breach, vendor's termination on 15 January 2008 was invalid; although the court has jurisdiction under s12 CPO to order specific performance, purchaser failed to prove current readiness and ability to complete, so specific performance is refused and alternative relief awarded.
5 Jul 2005
There was no separate enforceable agreement to provide a signed written fixed‑term employment contract distinct from the overall negotiations; consequently s.5(2) barred enforcement of any alleged oral fixed‑term employment contract and the judge’s factual finding that no independent agreement existed was correct, so the appeal is dismissed.
24 Dec 2004
The tender and its acceptance created a binding contract; no implied condition excused the vendor/liquidator from securing release of the machinery or from paying incidental liabilities where necessary to pass title; impecuniosity does not excuse non-performance; accordingly the appeal was dismissed, specific performance was ordered (subject to practicalities), and an injunction was granted to prevent dissipation of the liquidator's remaining funds to secure availability for costs and damages.
15 Mar 2001
Where a vendor persistently refuses to permit a contractual inspection, that refusal amounts to a continuing repudiatory breach; an innocent purchaser who initially elects to affirm by seeking specific performance may revoke that election if the repudiating party persists in breach, and may then validly claim damages in lieu of specific performance.
10 Jul 2000
Mr Yun, acting for his own company, knowingly consented to judgment without disclosing that the property had been surrendered to the bank and that completion was impossible; his omission amounted to serious dereliction of duty justifying an order that Yun & Co. bear costs personally, and as stakeholder Yun & Co. must return the $230,000 deposit where completion did not occur.