Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Building order

  • 26 Oct 2012

    LAU SHUN PING DANNY v. LAI HANG VA

    Citation
    LAU SHUN PING DANNY v. LAI HANG VA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1553/2009

    The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff made the alleged representations, assurances, or the oral Compliance and Rental Suspension Agreements; the plaintiff did not disclose Building Order and Fire Safety Direction before signing but believed they did not affect occupation; only the covenant of quiet enjoyment was implied; plaintiff complied with the Building Order and the Fire Safety Direction did not apply; water leakage did not impede ordinary use or quiet enjoyment; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for specified sums and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

  • 20 Sept 2005

    WINLY PROSPER LTD v. IN-TIME INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD

    Citation
    WINLY PROSPER LTD v. IN-TIME INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6000/2004

    The court held the writ was validly served under Companies Ordinance s.356 despite the registered address being vacant; therefore the default judgment was regular. On the merits, except for the power of attorney matter (where s.13(4A) applied), the defendant failed to show a real prospect of success because it did not satisfactorily answer requisitions or discharge the building order and the deposits had been forfeited; accordingly the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed.

  • 6 Oct 2004

    BENEFIT CHARTER LTD v. KEVIN L. H. KWONG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    BENEFIT CHARTER LTD v. KEVIN L. H. KWONG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4775/2000

    The court held the defendants were not professionally negligent: given the prevailing authorities and conveyancing practice the defendants reasonably treated the Building Authority letter of 17 April 1997 as effectively removing the real risk of enforcement and as sufficient for completion; the vendors' failure to register the memorial and to give the original was remiss but did not amount to actionable negligence; the assistant solicitor was not personally liable because there was no objective assumption of personal responsibility by him; plaintiff's claim dismissed.

  • 2 May 2001

    CHOW HAI PING, DAVID AND ANOTHER v. LEE ZZ JOSEPH, MARIE MADELEINE LEE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHOW HAI PING, DAVID AND ANOTHER v. LEE ZZ JOSEPH, MARIE MADELEINE LEE AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2412/2000

    The Purchasers were not entitled to terminate because the Sale and Purchase Agreement expressly disclosed and dealt with the Building Order and therefore the Purchasers contracted to take title subject to that encumbrance; the Confirmatory Release cured any title doubt and Hayley Ltd was estopped from asserting otherwise; there was no present enforceable liability from the slope investigation so no separate ground to rescind.

  • 10 Jul 2000

    HU MEI YU ANASTASIA v. KING BEST ENTERPRISE LTD.

    Citation
    HU MEI YU ANASTASIA v. KING BEST ENTERPRISE LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA9317/1998

    The Building Order constituted an encumbrance but the plaintiff's undertaking to bear her apportioned share was reasonable and sufficient to discharge the encumbrance; Clause 16(2) of the Formal Agreement transferred liability for renovation/slope costs to the purchaser, so the plaintiff had contracted to convey title subject to the agreed contingent liability and thus had a good title; defendant breached by refusing to complete and plaintiff entitled to damages of $1,164,471.70, forfeiture of deposits totaling $760,000, and dismissal of defendant's counterclaim.