Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title defects

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2024

HIGH ROUTE LTD v. WONG CHUNG KAI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 75
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA320/2019

The Court refused to imply a subjective due diligence termination right because it was unnecessary, vague, inconsistent with express contractual remedies (Clause 8) and would rewrite the parties' bargain; the Schedule 2 clauses expressly precluded any requisition or objection to the identified DLO defect and therefore the defect did not justify non-completion; alleged breach of Clause 3(g)/Companies Ordinance was at best an innominate or minor breach and did not entitle rescission; on the facts the plaintiff repudiated the agreement and the defendant lawfully accepted repudiation and is entit…
26 Nov 2020

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE (formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN)

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1037
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP195/2020

The intended appeal has no prospect of success because the Chief Judge properly found that the parties, through their solicitor, agreed to postpone completion to 9 January 2008; Union Eagle does not apply where completion was postponed by agreement and there was therefore no breach; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the summons dismissed.
13 Nov 2020

DRAGON ACCESS HOLDINGS LTD v. LO CHU HUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2895
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1355/2019

The Defendant breached express obligations under the PSPA (failure to deliver unredacted BOC facility letter and required company accounts and management accounts on time; failure to remedy material liabilities including BOC mortgage exposure and unresolved Telecom/Estate loan assignments) which amounted to failure to complete in accordance with the PSPA. The Plaintiff did not unequivocally affirm the contract. Clause 16(b) applies and is not a penalty in the circumstances; Plaintiff is entitled to return of deposit and liquidated damages and an equitable lien over the Sale Share and Sharehol…
12 Oct 2020

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN, ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 899
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence, corroborated by contemporaneous notes, diary entries and documents, that the parties orally agreed to postpone completion to 9 January 2008; the title discrepancies were known by end of December 2007; under the established Rule (Meggary & Wade) s3 CPO did not bar enforcement in these circumstances and specific performance was appropriate; the defendant's grounds for appeal did not show a reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
11 Jul 2019

HKMC MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT LTD v. TSE WING IP AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP348/2014

The court held that a purchaser's equitable lien is an equitable remedy intended to do justice between the parties and is not in principle confined to securing the deposit; accordingly, a purchaser's equitable lien may be granted to cover damages for loss of profits if the court finds it just in all the circumstances, and the claim should not be struck out solely on the basis that damages are sought.
3 Jul 2019

IP FONG KENG v. FONG YU SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP843/2017

The vendor/defendant failed to answer the requisitions satisfactorily: mere assertions of non-receipt, an unexplained offer of HK$6,000 and lack of evidence as to compliance or the cost of remedial works were inadequate. Consequently the defendant was not entitled to annul the sale on the basis asserted and the purchasers rejection of the vendors responses was justified.
29 Mar 2019

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN, ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUNG

Citation

[2019] HKDC 435
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

The court disallowed the proposed para 12A amendment because it introduced a new contention of solicitor negligence causally linked to non-completion that was unnecessary to the core dispute and risked complicating and prejudicing the retrial; amendments that created inconsistency were required to be withdrawn or edited and the re-amended defence was permitted only subject to concessions. Applications to file supplemental witness evidence and for further particulars were not finally disposed of but directed to be dealt with on a strict timetable (draft supplemental statement to be lodged for…
22 Oct 2018

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1150
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1–13 because they were essentially credibility and factual challenges lacking a reasonable prospect of success; leave to appeal granted on ground 14 because the 12‑month delay in delivering judgment could have produced omissions or errors making the judgment unsafe and therefore merits appellate scrutiny.
12 Dec 2017

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN

Citation

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

On the balance of probabilities the court found there was a mutual agreement to postpone completion to 9 January 2008, the plaintiff paid the balance and was ready to complete, the defendant refused to execute the assignment on 9 January 2008 and therefore breached the sale and purchase agreement; specific performance was the appropriate remedy and costs follow the event.
12 Sept 2017

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2011

The court held that the completion date was validly varied to 22 June 2011 by the 7 May memorandum read together with solicitors' correspondence; the plaintiffs' correspondence raised timely and substantive requisitions or engaged the defendants' express warranty as to third party rights (clause 24); the defendants failed to show absence of any valid third party claim and therefore failed to show good title; accordingly the defendants repudiated the agreement and plaintiffs were entitled to return of the $400,000 deposit and wasted conveyancing costs.