Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vendor and purchaser summons

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2018

KINGDOM MILES LTD v. EVER CRYSTAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2017

The certified copy of the Conditions of Grant constituted sufficient proof of the Government lease under s13(1) CPO; the absence of the two historical letters did not create any real risk of an encumbrance on title and the vendor had adequately and candidly answered requisitions; accordingly the purchaser was not entitled to refuse completion and the Court of Appeal allowed the vendor's appeal, setting aside the recorder's declarations to the contrary.
23 Jun 2016

YEUNG YUN CHOI AND ANOTHER v. LAM PA KIN

Citation

YEUNG YUN CHOI AND ANOTHER v. LAM PA KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP554/2016

The court inferred from the Subject to clause and the surrounding evidence that the common intention of the parties to the 2nd assignment was that it would not take effect until the premium was paid to the Housing Authority; accordingly the 2nd assignment only became effective after payment and the plaintiffs have shown good title; however the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently answer the defendant's requisition.
23 Mar 2016

NG WAI KWAN v. LAI WAI LAM trading under the name of W L LAI & CO, SOLICITORS

Citation

NG WAI KWAN v. LAI WAI LAM trading under the name of W L LAI & CO, SOLICITORS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2282/2014

The defendant's pre-completion advice was not incorrect in context: no executed sub-DMC was produced before the completion deadline so the vendor had failed to show a good title and the purchaser was not bound to complete; on the negligence standard the defendant's judgment fell within the range of reasonable professional responses and the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or causation. Claim dismissed.
27 May 2015

WONG CHI PAN v. LAU YU CHAU AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG CHI PAN v. LAU YU CHAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3000/2014

The vendor and purchaser summons was struck out because it duplicated matters already before the High Court in the originating action, constituted an abuse of process by causing unnecessary multiplication of proceedings, and the appropriate mechanism for early determination of the title question was an application for a preliminary issue under Order 33 r 3; accordingly the summons is struck out and costs follow against the plaintiff.
12 Dec 2012

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2012

On the objective facts (transaction history, registered legal charges and releases and commercial improbability that two banks would accept security subordinate to an unknown equitable charge), the court inferred with practical certainty that the equitable charge had been discharged de facto; the defendants therefore had good title and had answered the requisition satisfactorily. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
1 Mar 2011

WANG ZHIDUN v. TSOI MING PUI

Citation

WANG ZHIDUN v. TSOI MING PUI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2707/2010

Requisitions 4(a) (illegible common seal on 2006 Assignment) and 6(b) (execution by rubber chop without PRC legal evidence) were not satisfactorily answered; therefore the vendor failed to prove good title and the purchaser is entitled to return of deposit, damages and costs.
16 Sept 2009

LUCKY DRAGON CORPORATION LTD v. SPEEDY VANTAGE LTD

Citation

LUCKY DRAGON CORPORATION LTD v. SPEEDY VANTAGE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/2009

The appeal was dismissed because the vendor failed to prove good title: the unauthorised slabbing over of the void and extension of the cockloft floor went to the root of title and the vendor could not exclude a real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority; the defect was not discoverable by reasonable due diligence from the documents provided, entitling the purchaser to rescind and recover the deposit.
3 Dec 2008

WONG YIU TING v. KWOK WING CHIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG YIU TING v. KWOK WING CHIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA729/2008

The requisition was adequately answered because evidence of the parties' common intention and conveyancing undertakings established that the 1998 assignment did not take effect until the premium had been paid; therefore there was no breach of Section 17B and the title was good.
22 Jun 2001

LEONART LTD. v. TURN FINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

LEONART LTD. v. TURN FINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP432/2001

The judge held that a liquidator's sale to himself is not equivalent to a mortgagee selling to himself and is voidable rather than absolutely void; on the facts the 1975 assignment was made openly with required filings and distributions and there has been long acquiescence and intervening third party interests, so the risk of a successful challenge is remote and fanciful; accordingly the defendant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the title is good and the court declared the title good.
6 Jun 2001

Lam Suk Fun v. Choy Ying Keung Kenny

Citation

Lam Suk Fun v. Choy Ying Keung Kenny
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3678/2000

The judge exercised discretion after balancing prejudice and proportionality: because the plaintiff's claim is modest (HK$162,000), urgent, and designed for summary resolution, and transfer would cause undue delay, the application to transfer/adjourn was refused; third party proceedings were adjourned until after the vendor and purchaser summons hearing to protect the summary remedy and avoid disproportionate escalation.