Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Midnight rule

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2015

GUO JIANJUN AND AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

GUO JIANJUN AND AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/2014

Clauses 5 and 6 must be construed together in context to mean the vendor must produce a proper authorised person's certificate within a reasonable time before completion so the purchaser's solicitors can verify it and make necessary completion arrangements; delivery of the certificate at 6:07 pm on the scheduled completion date (after office hours) was not within reasonable time and entitled the purchasers to accept repudiation and rescind, so the trial judgment ordering return of the deposit and wasted conveyancing costs stands.
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…
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By the time the purchaser rescinded (about 4:40 p.m.) the vendor had already committed anticipatory breach by offering a different and smaller unit than contracted; therefore the Camberra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.
9 Sept 2009

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 held as a matter of contractual construction that advancing the completion date did not vary the expressly agreed time provision and that completion on 21 May 2008 was to occur within the Business Hours (by 5:00 pm); however, summary judgment was refused because there remained a genuine factual dispute whether the Defendant's representative actually tendered completion before the deadline (the time chop showing 5:06 pm and the Defendant's assertion of timely arrival create a triable issue).

Hong Kong Case Law

GUO JIANJUN AND AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD

GUO JIANJUN AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON FAME INVESTMENT LTD

CROWNING SUCCESS LTD v. BRIGHTLAND CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

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