Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defect in title

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2019

CHEER SKY LTD v. CHAN YUET SHEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2014

On construction of the provisional agreement against the factual matrix (parties knew of the unauthorised Structures) the contract was for the Property including the Structures with the purchaser assuming the risk of any defect arising from them; Cheer Sky knew of and effectively accepted that risk (waiver), so the vendor had discharged her obligation to show and give title to the property she contracted to sell; Cheer Sky repudiated by attempting to force a substantial price reduction and is not entitled to specific performance or damages; the provisional agreement was rescinded and related…
17 Jan 2007

SHIU YUK TONG v. GOLDMAY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

SHIU YUK TONG v. GOLDMAY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA62/2003

The Deed of Mutual Covenant conferred a legal exclusive right to the 6th floor lift lobby despite factual limitations on exclusive possession and there was no defect in title; the plaintiff failed to prove non‑compliance with Regulation 49 because measurements did not account for screeding/tiling and occupation permit and evidence supported compliance or exemption, and in any event the flood was caused by blocked drains, so rescission and damages fail.
18 Aug 1999

Lucky Health International Enterprise Ltd. v. Chi Kit Co. Ltd. and Another

Citation

Lucky Health International Enterprise Ltd. v. Chi Kit Co. Ltd. and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/1999

By majority the Court held that where a vendor is aware of issued proceedings against the incorporated owners which, by statute (Building Management Ordinance s.17), are capable of being enforced against any owner for the time being, the vendor was under a duty to disclose the existence of those proceedings to prospective purchasers; failure to disclose such a claim (and the subsequent judgment before completion) constituted a defect/encumbrance in the vendor's title entitling the purchaser to rescind the contract and recover the deposit with interest.
17 Dec 1998

NG KING WAI, TERENCE AND ANOTHER v. QING YUAN ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

NG KING WAI, TERENCE AND ANOTHER v. QING YUAN ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP748/1998

No special circumstances existed to justify a stay: the defendant did not demonstrate better-than-even prospects of success, the timing of the appeal was optimistic and could prejudice plaintiffs who already had judgment and significant funds withheld, plaintiffs need not be compelled to disclose assets, and the defendant's offer to pay money into court was irrelevant to the discretionary exercise; accordingly the stay application was dismissed.
23 Nov 1998

LUCKY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD. v. CHI KIT CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCKY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD. v. CHI KIT CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4041/1997

The court found that although the defendants' agents had knowledge which was imputable to the defendant companies, the potential liability under section 17 BMO did not constitute an encumbrance on the property at the date of completion; therefore the defendants could show good title capable of being passed free from encumbrance and the plaintiff was not entitled to rescind. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, with costs to the defendants (order nisi).

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEER SKY LTD v. CHAN YUET SHEUNG

SHIU YUK TONG v. GOLDMAY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Lucky Health International Enterprise Ltd. v. Chi Kit Co. Ltd. and Another

NG KING WAI, TERENCE AND ANOTHER v. QING YUAN ENTERPRISES LTD.

LUCKY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD. v. CHI KIT CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER