Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Completion

  • 6 Jun 2014

    GUO JIANJUN AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD

    Citation
    GUO JIANJUN AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP318/2013

    Clause 5 replaced the vendor's duty to answer requisitions on the legality of the repartitioning by obliging the vendor to provide an authorised person's certificate; that certificate was a document of title that had to be delivered within a reasonable time before completion so solicitors could carry out necessary checks in the ordinary course of business; the vendor breached clause 5 by delivering the certificate so late (after office hours on the day of completion) that it deprived the purchasers of reasonable opportunity to verify it, and that breach amounted to repudiation accepted by the…

  • 6 Feb 2012

    CIRCLE ANGLE LTD v. ORCHARD ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    CIRCLE ANGLE LTD v. ORCHARD ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1252/2011

    The court held OEL did not repudiate the contract by refusing an undertaking to pay future compliance costs; CAL's unilateral refusal to complete amounted to repudiation and actual breach on completion date; there was no concluded oral cancellation agreement or implied rescission; there was no waiver of the completion date by OEL such as to require reasonable notice to complete; OEL was entitled to forfeit the deposit under clause 13 and the lis pendens registration was wrongful; summary judgment on the counterclaim was appropriate and CAL's proposed amendments were dismissed.

  • 24 May 2011

    SMART MAX ENTERPRISE LTD v. SPEEDY WAY LTD

    Citation
    SMART MAX ENTERPRISE LTD v. SPEEDY WAY LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV4/2011

    The purchaser was entitled to reasonable time to consider answers to requisitions and clause 6 (seven working days to reply) evidenced an agreed period to assess answers; when the vendor delivered answers only on the day fixed for completion and then demanded completion the next day (or offered only a one‑day postponement), the vendor breached the agreement by not affording the purchaser the contractual/ reasonable time to consider the answers. That breach entitled the purchaser to terminate and recover the deposit; there was no waiver by the purchaser. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

  • 16 Dec 2010

    WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO

    Citation
    WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2672/2008

    The Court found that advancing the completion date did not remove the contract\'s defined Business Hours; the Defendant failed to ensure delivery within those hours, did not challenge the vendor\'s recorded arrival time promptly, and handled the dispute imprudently; the Defendant was negligent and liable to reimburse the Plaintiff HK$180,000 plus associated costs and interest resulting from mitigation of loss.

  • 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.

  • 19 Feb 2010

    LEE ZOЁ v. HUI PAK FONG

    Citation
    LEE ZOЁ v. HUI PAK FONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP157/2009

    The vendor failed to give vacant possession by the contractual deadline and the items remaining were not de minimis; the vendor was late in tendering keys; the prevention principle did not apply because the plaintiff's prior conduct did not breach obligations or causally prevent the vendor's performance; therefore the plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of deposits and the cheques and an assessment of damages.

  • 30 Dec 2009

    MAPLE LEAF INVESTMENT CO LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD

    Citation
    MAPLE LEAF INVESTMENT CO LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA891/2009

    The Court held that clause 5(1) required notification within one month of the actual issuance of the Certificate of Compliance or Director's consent; the Certificate was issued on 11 November 2008 and the defendant's 28 November 2008 notification complied with clause 5(1) and clause 5(2) allowed completion within 14 days, so the plaintiff's primary claim failed; the AP's certified extension to 29 November 2008 was valid and because the plaintiff did not give the contractual rescission notice within the prescribed period it was deemed to have elected to wait; the defendant validly determined t…

  • 9 Apr 2008

    TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LOK TAK CHING

    Citation
    TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LOK TAK CHING
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ667/2004

    Defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendant failed to plead factual foundation for the alleged implied term or to identify or evidence any misrepresentation, failed to rescind the contract despite contractual rights, and therefore disclosed no reasonable defence under Order 18 r.19; judgment entered for plaintiff for damages to be assessed and costs ordered nisi.

  • 7 Apr 2008

    TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN LAI LING RAINBOW

    Citation
    TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN LAI LING RAINBOW
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ649/2004

    The Defence and Counterclaim did not plead sufficient facts to establish an implied term, identify or support a misrepresentation, or show a lawful excuse to refuse completion; delay alone was not a contractual ground to refuse completion; accordingly the Defence and Counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence and were struck out and judgment entered for the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed and costs ordered nisi.

  • 30 May 2006

    SPORTS TECHNOLOGY (ASIA) LTD v. CLARIDGE HOUSE LTD

    Citation
    SPORTS TECHNOLOGY (ASIA) LTD v. CLARIDGE HOUSE LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1478/2004

    The PO constituted the underlying contract; the requirement to present an Architect's certificate was a term of the separate letter of credit, not an independent condition precedent in the underlying contract; the Plaintiff had completed the works in the ordinary/substantial sense, the Defendant failed to substantiate the alleged defects, the LC had expired so the Plaintiff's right to sue for the outstanding instalment revived, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$333,060.40 with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.