Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title objection

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 1997

REGENT FUND INVESTMENT LTD. v. NG SHUK KWAN and Another

Citation

REGENT FUND INVESTMENT LTD. v. NG SHUK KWAN and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2301/1996

The court held that the defendants had shown good title: on completion the property would no longer be held jointly and therefore s.6(1)(d) does not render the property itself dutiable by survivorship; any estate duty issue would affect sale proceeds, not the purchaser's title. The plaintiff's requisitions were sufficiently answered and the originating summons was dismissed with costs.
29 Mar 1993

RICH CIRCLE CO. LTD. V. LUCKY TIME FINANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

RICH CIRCLE CO. LTD. V. LUCKY TIME FINANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4202/1992

Where a prior purchaser commenced specific performance proceedings but consented to their dismissal, there is no real risk that the prior purchaser can later successfully enforce the contract against a subsequent purchaser; therefore a requisition based on that prior contract is sufficiently answered absent real (not fanciful) grounds such as fraud.
31 Dec 1992

ACTIVE KEEN INDUSTRIES LTD v. FOK CHI KEONG

Citation

ACTIVE KEEN INDUSTRIES LTD v. FOK CHI KEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3761/1992

The vendor satisfied the obligation to answer the purchaser's title objection by producing a Building Authority letter demonstrating long-standing awareness of the nine-flat arrangement, thereby showing there was no real or material risk of enforcement; accordingly the purchaser's objection was satisfactorily answered and the vendor entitled to costs.
28 Jan 1992

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP91/1992

A purchaser who takes with notice of a deed of gift made within three years of death takes subject to the contingent estate duty charge even if the charge is latent and unregistered; the proviso to s.18(1) does not protect a purchaser with notice of the facts, and therefore the purchaser was entitled to annul the sale and recover the deposit.
19 Dec 1990

KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Citation

KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2857/1990

The Court found that although a theoretical possibility of enforcement existed, the risk of the Building Authority taking action was so remote after 30 years' occupation and the Authority's apparent lack of interest that the vendor discharged the burden of showing there was no real risk; accordingly the vendor had satisfactorily answered the requisition and the purchasers were not entitled to rescind or recover their deposit.

Hong Kong Case Law

REGENT FUND INVESTMENT LTD. v. NG SHUK KWAN and Another

RICH CIRCLE CO. LTD. V. LUCKY TIME FINANCE CO. LTD.

ACTIVE KEEN INDUSTRIES LTD v. FOK CHI KEONG

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER

KOK CHONG HO AND ANOTHER v. DOUBLE VALUE DEVELOPMENTS LTD