Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Timing of requisitions

  • 4 Aug 2023

    RESOURCES LEADER LTD v. HO NGO YING

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1837
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2667/2018

    Clause 20 of the Preliminary Agreement (the as‑is/cockloft clause) validly precluded the purchaser from objecting to the disclosed cockloft and its access; the Plaintiff's requisitions based on the Pau report dated 26 October 2018 were raised out of time (within 14 days of completion) and not waived; on the facts there was no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority in respect of the material UBWs and the Defendant had shown and was able to give good title; Plaintiff's claim dismissed and Defendant entitled to forfeit deposits totalling HK$3,568,000.

  • 27 Jul 2001

    CHAN KOON WAH v. YOUNG TAK LOR

    Citation
    CHAN KOON WAH v. YOUNG TAK LOR
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3649/2001

    Vendor had shown good title by admissible secondary evidence of government demise; requisitions raised after the agreed completion date were in time because parties continued to deal with title; deposit of 25% was not forfeitable absent express contractual forfeiture or special circumstances justifying more than customary 10%; vendor entitled only to damages for loss of bargain; valuation date for damages fixed as date parties finally broke off (5 November 1998).

  • 20 Mar 2000

    CENTURY CROWN LTD. v. HO WING CHUN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CENTURY CROWN LTD. v. HO WING CHUN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2147/1998

    The plaintiff's initial requisition was out of time but the defendants waived strict timing; however the requisition in substance was vague and founded on an expert the court rejected as unreliable; the defendants' expert evidence established the works were exempted/non-structural and no unauthorized structures existed; defendants therefore proved good title and the plaintiff's failure to complete was repudiatory entitling defendants to terminate, forfeit deposits and recover damages — however defendants adduced no evidential basis on quantum at trial so only nominal damages awarded. Costs fo…

  • 20 Sept 1999

    MODERN SINO LTD. v. ART FAIR CO. LTD.

    Citation
    MODERN SINO LTD. v. ART FAIR CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP5731/1998

    The court held that the existence of substantial unauthorised building works (c.146.784 sq.m.) objectively created a sufficient risk of enforcement by the Building Authority, re-entry under the lease and action under the DMC to render the title objectionable; the Vendor could not rely on Clause 21 because it had not disclosed the unauthorised works; and the Vendor had no good title to Car Parks Nos.1 and 2 because the 1988 purported assignment without transfer of undivided shares could only confer a personal licence, not an interest in land capable of assignment.

  • 19 Jan 1999

    NG LUNG SANG ANITA v. LAM YUK LAN

    Citation
    NG LUNG SANG ANITA v. LAM YUK LAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA14345/1997

    The requisition was arguably confusing as it conflated bathroom alterations with the construction of an aluminium window and therefore arguable that the vendor was not obliged to answer; it was also arguable that the requisition was unnecessary as it did not relate to a title defect that required Building Authority approval; given these triable issues (and that the purchaser could not earlier inspect the flat due to vendor's conduct) summary judgment was inappropriate and the vendor must be given unconditional leave to defend.