Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery of title deeds

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

HONG KONG FINANCE (PERSONAL LOAN) LTD v. SIN SO FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2185
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3837/2024

Given the exceptional circumstances caused by priority allocation of transitional housing to fire victims and the resulting hardship, the court exercised its discretion to grant the defendants three months from service of the order to deliver vacant possession and title deeds, and directed the plaintiff's solicitor to draw and serve the formal order incorporating the other agreed terms.
28 Jul 2025

陳燕玲及另二人對陳家匡

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1226
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5375/2024

The court refused to set aside the December 23, 2024 sale order because the defendant had not shown a real prospect of success or any substantial prejudice that would justify vacating the order; the court exercised its discretion to vary the reserve price downward to HKD5,000,000 (from HKD5,100,000) based on the plaintiffs' valuation evidence and market considerations; the defendant was ordered to deliver the original transfer deed within 14 days; the defendant's separate summons was dismissed and he was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of both summonses; the plaintiffs' claim for monetar…
30 Jun 2023

WONG SAI HUNG v. WONG YU

Citation

[2023] HKDC 919
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1709/2022

The Delivery Order was clear and construed plainly; the defendant failed to deliver the documents; evidence and correspondence established defendant knew the documents were in her or her agent's possession and made no genuine attempts to recover them; the failure was not accidental and thus, beyond reasonable doubt, constituted civil contempt; liability for contempt entered.
3 May 2021

IP WOON SHUN, Administrator to the Estate of JULIANA TANG YEE 對 YU SHEK CHONG (alias OLIVER YU) 及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1736/2020

The administrator was entitled to possession and delivery of title deeds because there was no legally binding agreement extinguishing the administrator's rights; the first defendant had no proprietary interest or valid defence and the gratuitous licence was revoked, therefore the court ordered delivery of deeds and vacant possession within a reasonable time (42 days) and awarded costs against the first defendant.
2 Dec 2016

LUCKY POWER LTD v. LAM, PHILIP YUNG TAK

Citation

LUCKY POWER LTD v. LAM, PHILIP YUNG TAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1785/2012

The summons for a stay was dismissed because applicants failed to show arguable grounds of appeal or a reasonable prospect of obtaining the required extension of time to appeal, and their application was subject to long unexplained delay; the Decision is consequential on the Main Judgment and therefore unlikely to be overturned independently.
12 Oct 2016

LUCKY POWER LTD v. LAM, PHILIP YUNG TAK

Citation

LUCKY POWER LTD v. LAM, PHILIP YUNG TAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1785/2012

The Memorandum created an equitable mortgage; Lucky Power, as purchaser of Mr Casadei's interest, was entitled to exercise the equitable right of redemption by paying the principal of HK$320,000 (no interest), and upon payment Mr Lam and Education must deliver all title deeds and vacant possession of the Lots (including the Green Area); costs ordered in favour of Lucky Power (order nisi).
29 Apr 2013

MORE ALLIANCE LTD v. SHING SAMUEL

Citation

MORE ALLIANCE LTD v. SHING SAMUEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1980/2012

Vendor failed to discharge the high burden of proving good title: no evidence was produced showing the s24(1) BA Order had been complied with or that costs had been provided for so as to prevent a possible s33 charge; vendor failed to rebut a genuine asserted beneficial claim by his mother and did not satisfactorily address competing claims to the title deeds; consequently the SPA was rescinded and purchaser entitled to return of deposits and declarations sought.
25 Jul 2012

BIG MOST LTD v. CHAU WA HUNG

Citation

BIG MOST LTD v. CHAU WA HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2597/2011

Because the vendor failed to produce original or certified mortgage documents and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions about the 2010 and 2011 second mortgages and a potential right of way affecting a car-parking space, the vendor had not given good title under s13A/CPO and clause 8 of the Agreement; unanswered requisitions going to the root of the contract entitled the purchaser to refuse completion; plaintiff therefore entitled to return of deposit, legal costs and interest; defendant's counterclaim is dismissed (with limited alternative entitlements noted).
20 Mar 2008

LOYAL HOPE LTD v. LEUNG PUI MING AND OTHERS

Citation

LOYAL HOPE LTD v. LEUNG PUI MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA136/2007

Although the plaintiff's initial demand for production of originals beyond 15 years was not a valid requisition, the defendants nonetheless failed to give good title because they could not supply satisfactory statutory declaration or original deeds for missing pre-15-year instruments; contractual clauses did not clearly displace the vendors' common law obligation to deliver originals for documents not in the vendors' possession; therefore plaintiff validly rescinded and is entitled to return of deposits and damages to be quantified.
12 Mar 2003

WONG WING TAO v. WONG WAI KEUNG

Citation

WONG WING TAO v. WONG WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1213/2002

The plaintiff's claim to be sole beneficial owner of the First Property was bound to fail because the Deed of Gift expressed an intention to gift which could not be displaced by the plaintiff's contradictory evidence; the surrounding facts were consistent with at most a limited interest or licence and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence to the counterclaim, therefore the Master's orders striking out the claim and entering judgment for the defendant were correctly affirmed.