Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Completion of sale

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2016

SIU BAN & SONS LTD v. SUN TAI HING GARMENT MAKING CO LTD

Citation

SIU BAN & SONS LTD v. SUN TAI HING GARMENT MAKING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA31/2015

The plaintiff failed to prove non-payment and non-completion on the balance of probabilities; the company’s financial records and subsequent conduct were consistent with the sale having been treated as completed, and possession of title deeds and the property by the vendor/custodian did not establish that the Assignment was void, so the claim to set aside the Assignment was dismissed.
9 Dec 2013

WONG YUK YING v. CHAN PUI SHAN MAY

Citation

WONG YUK YING v. CHAN PUI SHAN MAY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP688/2013

Leave to appeal was granted because the plaintiff demonstrated at least one non‑fanciful arguable ground based on Clause 5 Part A of the Second Schedule to the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance as incorporated into the contract which could found an obligation to deliver vacant possession where the tenancy terminated before completion; the application for leave does not require full rehearing of contested trial issues.
14 Mar 2011

HO ANDREW WAI YIP AND ANOTHER v. BILLION EASE CORPORATION LTD

Citation

HO ANDREW WAI YIP AND ANOTHER v. BILLION EASE CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1627/2010

On unchallenged evidence the court found a binding sale agreement existed, completion time was of the essence, completion did not occur and the period was only extended to the expiry of the District Office consent (27 January 2010); the defendant failed to complete within that extended period despite demands, the forfeiture provision in Part A of the Second Schedule to Cap.219 applied, and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations sought and an order for costs.
1 Apr 2010

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2009

By the time the purchaser rescinded (about 4:40 p.m.) the vendor had already committed anticipatory breach by offering a different and smaller unit than contracted; therefore the Camberra midnight-rule principle did not apply and the appellant's appeal failed; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in awarding costs globally and refusing to fragment costs.
10 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN TUNG

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN TUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1122/2004

The Defence and Counterclaim were struck out because the Defendant failed to plead requisite factual particulars to establish the alleged implied term or misrepresentation, produced no timely rescission under the Agreement and thus had a contractual obligation to complete; consequently the pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
9 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ662/2004

The defendant failed to plead sufficient factual particulars to establish any implied term or a legitimate defence and did not elect rescission under the contractual remedy for vendor delay; consequently there was no reasonable defence and the defence and counterclaim were properly struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff, damages to be assessed.
8 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHU WAI LING

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHU WAI LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ661/2004

The defence and counterclaim failed because the defendant did not plead a factual basis for an implied term, did not identify any actionable misrepresentation, and delay in completion was not a contractual defence; therefore the pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and were struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
3 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHUN BIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHUN BIU AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1299/2004

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to adequately plead or particularise an implied term, failed to identify any actionable misrepresentation or show causation, and could not rely on mere delay where the Agreement contained no contractual basis excusing completion; therefore their pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.
1 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TANG KWAI SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TANG KWAI SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ644/2004

Defence and counterclaim struck out because pleadings failed to identify or particularize an enforceable implied term, any actionable misrepresentation, or any contractual basis to refuse completion; defendants were under contractual duty to complete and defendant's pleaded defences did not disclose a reasonable defence; judgment entered for plaintiff for damages to be assessed.
1 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN WAI HONG

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN WAI HONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ643/2004

The defence failed because the defendant did not plead facts establishing the asserted implied term or show any contractual basis to refuse completion for delay; he did not validly rescind the agreement; consequently the defence and counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence and were properly struck out under Order 18 r.19, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.