Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Caveat emptor

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2022

LAI FUNG TIN v. JOHN, DONALD CHUKWUZITERE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 423
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP238/2021

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds were pure challenges to the Tribunal's factual findings and did not raise any arguable question of law; the suggested implied term that premises would be supplied with electricity could be neither implied in law nor in fact; there was no actionable concealment or agreement to cancel and no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
3 Jun 2021

LAI FUNG TIN v. JOHN, DONALD CHUKWUZITERE

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 41
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE376/2021

On the balance of probabilities there was no binding promise by the landlord or her agent to install the electricity supply or apply for the meter prior to the tenancy; the written tenancy allocated interior renovation to the tenant, caveat emptor applies, and the respondent remained liable for rent and costs; possession granted with conditional relief from forfeiture if arrears and costs paid by specified date.
22 Nov 2013

SINGH JUGRAJ v. WAVE STEP LTD

Citation

SINGH JUGRAJ v. WAVE STEP LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2637/2010

Judge found on credibility and contemporaneous documentation that the alleged oral representations were not established; even if made, plaintiff did not reasonably rely on them; ostensible authority of agent existed only in potential but was immaterial; no duty to disclose alleged illegal cockloft where premises let 'as is'; plaintiff’s claim dismissed; defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid rent, repair and loss of rental income succeeds and after set-off judgment entered for defendant in sum HK$112,000 plus interest and costs.
24 Nov 2008

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS

Citation

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5975/2005

The proposed amendment was not consequential to the 1st Defendant's Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim and, in any event, would be immaterial and prejudicial; the Plaintiff had no evidence that the representee relied on or even knew of a Form 1, so the amendment could not support the pleaded misrepresentation and leave to amend was refused.
19 Apr 2007

FOREVER BUSINESS LTD v. LONG SURPLUS INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

FOREVER BUSINESS LTD v. LONG SURPLUS INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV192/2006

On the facts the absence of an occupation permit was not a material latent defect obliging disclosure because the purchaser could have ascertained it by reasonable inquiry and the vendor could demonstrate no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority; the vendor did not commit anticipatory breach and the purchaser prematurely repudiated, so appeal dismissed.
26 Jan 2000

LAM MAN FUNG MAMIE v. ACTIVE BENEFIT LTD.

Citation

LAM MAN FUNG MAMIE v. ACTIVE BENEFIT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11556/1997

The court implied a term that where the vendor covenants to build/complete the development the completed property (including the roof top) must be reasonably fit for habitation; the roof top was unsafe and not fit for normal habitation activities and therefore the defendant breached that implied term; Clause 28 was construed as relating to workmanship/materials not design and Clauses 2,6 and Schedule 3 were covenants for title not quality; plaintiff entitled to damages measured by difference in market value of the unit with and without usable roof top (HK$180,000) plus interest; costs ordered…
6 Mar 1998

WOO TURHAN v. LAU HIN KWAN CAL VIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

WOO TURHAN v. LAU HIN KWAN CAL VIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3217/1997

The court held that the vendor's solicitors answered the July requisitions without reserving the right to rely on the contractually stipulated time bar and thereby waived the lateness objection; further, the existence of unauthorized structures amounted to an encumbrance preventing the vendors from giving a good title. Consequently the purchaser was entitled to rescind and to repayment of deposits with costs and interest.
TANG WAH LEUNG t/a WAH HING PLASTIC FACTORY v. CHAN MEI LIN

Citation

TANG WAH LEUNG t/a WAH HING PLASTIC FACTORY v. CHAN MEI LIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1221/1970

The written tenancy (Exh. P.3) governs; pre-contractual advertisement and negotiations do not establish a collateral warranty that the structures were lawful for industrial use. There was no actionable misrepresentation; no implied warranty that premises were lawful for intended industrial purposes; tenant bore the risk (caveat emptor) and remained liable for rent until Crown re-entry. Plaintiff failed to prove quantified damages. Defendant's counterclaim for damages was dismissed on in pari delicto and lack of evidence; set-offs for rent and electricity deposits were allowed leaving a small…