Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requisition to title

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2012

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2012

On the objective facts (transaction history, registered legal charges and releases and commercial improbability that two banks would accept security subordinate to an unknown equitable charge), the court inferred with practical certainty that the equitable charge had been discharged de facto; the defendants therefore had good title and had answered the requisition satisfactorily. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
18 Oct 2000

SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP7102/1999

Following the Court of Appeal authority in Chun Hon Wai and applying Active Keen, the vendor had sufficiently shown it could give good title despite the earlier decision in Ultra Eternal; the purchasers were not entitled to terminate and the deposits were forfeited to the vendor.
26 Nov 1996

AU FUNG YEE v. CHENG YICK KEUNG

Citation

AU FUNG YEE v. CHENG YICK KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3624/1996

Clause 7.1 dealt only with who bears the cost of obtaining certified copies for a 15-year chain and did not limit the vendor's contractual duty to give good title; the Defendant produced contrary evidence in the form of an entirely different second Chinese character in relevant signatures which displaced statutory presumptions and undermined proof of identity and execution, so the vendor failed to prove good title and the Plaintiff was entitled to declarations and repayment of the deposit.
6 Jun 1995

HOMYIP INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHU KANG MING TRADE DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

HOMYIP INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHU KANG MING TRADE DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1100/1995

The court held that the existence of an unauthorised additional storey within the boundaries of a house constitutes an encumbrance on title; the defendant failed to show good title and failed to answer the purchaser's requisition satisfactorily; accordingly the purchaser was entitled to rescind the Agreement and recover the deposit and costs of investigating title.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER

SZE KING LUN AND ANOTHER v. NICERICH INVESTMENTS LTD.

AU FUNG YEE v. CHENG YICK KEUNG

HOMYIP INVESTMENT LTD. v. CHU KANG MING TRADE DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.