25 Jan 2017
Because there was no personal representative of the intermediate trustee (Chui Chun Fai) able or willing to possess the legal title and the applicants had acquired the beneficial interest and been in peaceful, uninterrupted possession since 1992, the court concluded that section 45(e) Trustee Ordinance applied and it was appropriate to vest legal title in the applicants as joint tenants.
19 Apr 2007
On the facts the absence of an occupation permit was not a material latent defect obliging disclosure because the purchaser could have ascertained it by reasonable inquiry and the vendor could demonstrate no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority; the vendor did not commit anticipatory breach and the purchaser prematurely repudiated, so appeal dismissed.
12 Oct 2005
The vendor's draft statutory declaration meant reliance on section 5(4)(b) was an acceptable fallback, but the vendor failed to satisfy the purchaser that the Housing Society's consent would be given on completion because there was no evidence or enquiries to HS beyond the vendor's promise to repay; that unresolved defect was a blot on title entitling the purchaser to reject completion, so judgment is entered for the purchasers.
13 May 2004
The court refused the Order 29 r.2 preservation and inspection application because it was made too late, amounted to a fishing expedition not confined to pleaded matters, and would cause further delay disproportionate to any likely benefit; accordingly the discretionary power under Order 29 r.2 should not be exercised in the plaintiff's favour.
24 Jun 2002
The court found the signatures were not materially different and, alternatively, that the identical Hong Kong identity card number provided sufficient circumstantial proof of identity; therefore the plaintiffs' requisition was unreasonable or satisfactorily answered, the vendor had good title, plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and the defendant was entitled to forfeit the deposit and recover its counter-claim.
1 Mar 2002
Clause 7, which fixed an amount equivalent to the deposit as compensation, was not demonstrated to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss at the time of the provisional agreement and is therefore a penalty so the Plaintiff is not entitled to liquidated damages; Plaintiff is entitled to return of deposits and indemnity for stamp duty; Third Party (estate agent) did not breach a duty of care to the Defendants because it reasonably relied on the Defendants' assurance that legal advice had been obtained and estate agents are not required to verify in-depth conveyancing legal opinions.
19 Feb 2002
The Court held the proposed statutory declaration was materially deficient and insufficient to prove, to the required standard, that the completion and registration dates were in error; accordingly the alleged title defect remained and the purchaser was entitled to the relief sought on the vendor and purchaser summons.
15 Nov 2000
The Court held there was an actionable misrepresentation by conduct and by the tenancy plan that the yard formed part of the property; that misrepresentation operated on the purchaser's mind and was not of minor importance; rescission was therefore justified; the contract description was insufficient to exclude the yard and the tenancy plan could be used to elucidate boundaries; the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed.
8 Sept 1997
Because the protrusions affected only Flats A and B and not the subject Flat C, and because the Vendor produced the Occupation Permit and Certificate of Compliance and had no further documentary proof of Crown consent or waiver, the Vendor was not obliged to obtain further confirmation from the Lands Office and the requisition was sufficiently answered; therefore the Purchaser's objection lacked substance and the originating summons must be dismissed with costs.
22 Jan 1997
Vendor failed to adduce good title because two material building orders were not disclosed to the purchaser; the purchaser's limited knowledge of some unauthorised structures did not amount to waiver because he was not aware of the legal consequences; the estate agent received the building orders and failed to communicate them and was acting for the vendor, making the vendor liable for the non-disclosure; plaintiff entitled to declarations and reliefs claimed, counterclaims dismissed.