Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

As is clause

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2010

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV168/2009

The Court held the plaintiffs had, before completion, complied with the Buildings Department requirement to reinstate the End Wall and the cockloft issue was either removed or the requisition was raised too late; accordingly the plaintiffs were in a position to show and give good title, the defendant had not proved misrepresentation, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the order for forfeiture of the deposit and the judgment below.
21 Oct 2008

TSANG KWOK HUNG FREDERICK v. CHING LAI TUEN

Citation

TSANG KWOK HUNG FREDERICK v. CHING LAI TUEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5411/2007

The requisitions were sufficiently specific; the vendor failed to prove good title or to show the purchaser was not at real risk of an encumbrance; offers to stakehold or a limited indemnity were inadequate and did not answer the requisitions; therefore there was no arguable defence and summary judgment was appropriate for the purchaser.
18 Jan 2005

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1432/2004

The vendors failed to satisfactorily answer the purchaser's requisitions because they merely asserted the partitions were non‑structural without producing corroborative evidence (eg architect or surveyor reports); there was no evidence the purchaser knew the legal consequences of the physical alterations so no waiver arose; the 'as is' clause did not operate to shift risk of title defects; there was no evidence of acquiescence by the Building Authority. Therefore the purchaser validly rescinded the agreements and is entitled to return of deposits, indemnities, damages, costs, interest and a p…
18 Jan 2005

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1431/2004

Vendors failed to satisfactorily answer requisitions because they only asserted partitions were non-structural without providing supporting evidence (eg architect/surveyor reports); purchaser had not waived requisitions because she was not shown to have been aware of legal consequences; Clause 22 did not shift risk of title defects; thus purchaser validly rescinded and is entitled to return of deposits, indemnities, damages, costs, interest and a purchaser's lien.
20 Oct 1999

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.

Citation

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/1999

The court held that even accepting the purchaser could raise a late requisition on reasonable grounds, the vendor's answer that no cocklofts existed was a satisfactory answer; the purchaser was bound by the contractual 'as is' clauses which excluded objections to alleged unauthorised structures, the vendor was not obliged to permit a joint inspection, and the purchaser's failure to complete was a fundamental breach entitling the vendor to forfeit the deposits; appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD

TSANG KWOK HUNG FREDERICK v. CHING LAI TUEN

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER

POON MEE KUEN v. CHAN HOR TONG AND ANOTHER

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.