Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title requisitions

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

WONG SAU WING v. TSOZ CHUNG KAI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 175
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3762/2025

The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff relied solely on Order 13 r6 RDC which does not permit default judgment in the circumstances; the defendant filed a defence (albeit out of time and without retrospective leave) during a court-ordered stay which, being served before judgment, prevented entry of default judgment; additionally procedural failures by the plaintiff (failure to serve notice of adjourned hearing and failure to lodge skeleton submissions) weighed against granting final relief; costs were awarded to the defendant.
18 Nov 2024

LAU SUI HING v. SUARD PATRICIA CATHY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2028
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP92/2024

Requisitions No 3 and No 5 were validly raised and not satisfactorily answered, entitling the plaintiff to declaratory reliefs 1–3; Clause 7 when construed in context limited liquidated damages to the initial deposit of HK$90,000, but the defendant conceded and the court ordered repayment and damages in the total sum of HK$299,800 together with stamp duty HK$100 and interest; costs awarded at 85% of assessed costs (HK$98,600).
14 Jun 2024

CHAO CHIUNG YO, the executor of the Estate of Madam LEUNG HING SHAN, deceased v. SAM YU LIK ERIC

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP12/2023

The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer material requisitions (notably the Vendor lacked effective power to sell the parking space absent rectification of the will/probate by completion date and had not produced a certified carpark layout plan); that failure amounted to repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 was not a penalty and the Purchaser was entitled to liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000; the Purchaser is entitled to indemnity for any estate agent commission if it becomes payable; equitable lien is subsumed by the security paid…
5 Nov 2021

PEARL BLUE INVESTMENT LTD v. FIE CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1266
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4934/2019

The defendant failed to prove it had reinstated the common areas to the manager's satisfaction or that any licence authorised the alterations; the 7 April 2017 undertaking was binding to stakehold funds for outstanding works; consequently the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for HK$623,100 together with interest and costs, and the stakeheld HK$300,000 may be released only after full payment of judgment, interest and costs.
22 Oct 2020

MAK PUI KI V. HO WING HA

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2705
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP898/2020

The execution by Chan of the Jafoon Mortgage, including the assignment and attorneying powers in it, was an act operating on her undivided share which, viewed with s.44(2) CPO and the authorities, severed the joint tenancy so that Chan and Lau held as tenants in common ½ each, and because the 2014 assignment was by Chan alone the vendor could not give a good title to the purchaser and failed to answer the severance requisition in time; judgment for the purchaser follows.
23 Jan 2017

RECALL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PANTEN LTD

Citation

RECALL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PANTEN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1896/2012

A purchaser’s requisition that a co-owner claims exclusive possession of an area used as common parts goes to the root of title and may be raised out of time; the vendor failed to show good title at completion and no arguable defence was established, so specific performance was granted with adjustments for interest and costs.
2 Sept 2016

SPEEDY WAY LTD v. CHAN YING YING CRYSTAL

Citation

SPEEDY WAY LTD v. CHAN YING YING CRYSTAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP550/2016

On the facts the Deed and Assent, read together, manifested the beneficiaries' intention to vest the Property in the Mother and Chan; the unexplained deletion of signature clauses was a formal defect not a substantive breach of trust and did not put the purchaser on sufficient notice to defeat the title; accordingly Chan showed good title and the sale should be completed.
26 Jun 2015

CHAN KA CHING v. YIU SUI FONG

Citation

CHAN KA CHING v. YIU SUI FONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4434/2014

Even if a triable issue existed as to the formal validity of the DOR, the defendant demonstrated a good defence and absence of any real risk to title by reliance on root title documents (Government Lease, Deed Poll), the Building Licence, the DMC and Assignment, the registration of the DOR, STW's conduct and lack of objection, and s.13(4) where applicable; therefore requisitions were satisfactorily addressed and the plaintiff's summary summons must be dismissed.
24 Oct 2013

LO CHIU FOON v. LAW SUI MING

Citation

LO CHIU FOON v. LAW SUI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1010/2013

There were no triable issues: the defendant discharged the burden to show and give good title by producing a certified copy of the Modification Letter and the plaintiff produced no extraneous evidence of risk to title, therefore the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim including forfeiture of the deposit and associated reliefs.
25 Nov 2011

SO KA HUNG SAM v. LEUNG CHEE YIN

Citation

SO KA HUNG SAM v. LEUNG CHEE YIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1208/2011

Time for completion was not extended by correspondence; Article 17 of the Association's articles expressly required a board resolution and specified attestation, which rebutted the presumptions under ss.20 and 23 CPO; the defendant failed to produce the board resolution and failed to produce the original 2011 Agreement, thereby failing to answer requisitions and repudiating the Agreement; plaintiff entitled to rescind and obtain return of deposits and indemnities as ordered.