Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requisition as to title

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2020

WIELDER PROPERTIES INVESTMENT CO LTD v. RICHWAY INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1028/2019

The court held the requisition was satisfactorily answered and the vendors can give good title because, on the facts (an occupation permit authorising non‑domestic use, long standing use, government awareness and acquiescence) there was no real risk of government enforcement; Jumbo Gold and subsequent appellate authorities govern the proper test for good title and must be followed over decisions that treated any risk as fatal.
4 Aug 2015

MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO

Citation

MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1448/2011

Time of completion was not of the essence at the inception of the Agreement; WC's letter of 15 June 2011 did not make time of the essence, and even if it had, five days was not a reasonable time (court found seven days would be the minimum); Defendant treated the Agreement as rescinded and thereby was in repudiatory breach; Plaintiff entitled to specific performance; Defendant's memorandum of rescission is void and registration must be vacated; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to Plaintiff.
25 Jan 2011

WONG CHOR KIU v. LAU WING LOK

Citation

WONG CHOR KIU v. LAU WING LOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1401/2010

On construction the power of attorney conferred authority to purchase and sell real property in Hong Kong; the identification discrepancy was a clerical error capable of being rectified; the December 2009 agreement was merged into the assignment; accordingly the defendant had shown and given a good title and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed while judgment was entered for the defendant on its counterclaim including the declared relief and payment of $10,500 and costs.
18 Nov 2003

VICTORY STAR LTD v. NG FUNG YING AND OTHERS

Citation

VICTORY STAR LTD v. NG FUNG YING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2003

There was an arguable pleas of estoppel because the defendants unequivocally offered and carried out removal of the unauthorised structures and the plaintiff remained silent when notified; that silence could amount to a representation to accept the defendants' remedial course and estop the plaintiff from alleging failure of substantial performance, so leave to defend was properly granted and the appeal lacked merit.
7 Nov 2000

GREATEK INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LAM KIT SUM

Citation

GREATEK INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LAM KIT SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8817/1998

Vendor was under an obligation to answer requisitions by proving allocation of undivided shares and to produce any document referred to in title deeds which might create subsisting obligations (s13(1)(b) Cap.219); failure to do so deprived the purchaser of proof of good title and justified rescission and repayment of deposits and damages.
12 Jul 2000

YIP NGAN YEE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN TSZ YAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIP NGAN YEE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN TSZ YAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7871/1997

The initial requisition was not properly raised because it was imprecise and related to non‑existent difficulties apparent from the title documents provided; the plaintiffs' responses were sufficient; the defendants repudiated the contract by wrongfully refusing to complete, entitling the plaintiffs to forfeit the deposit, resell and recover damages equal to the contract price less the resale price together with mesne profits, outstanding charges and interest.
3 Mar 2000

JUMBO GOLD INVESTMENT LTD. v. WARREN YUEN CHEONG LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

JUMBO GOLD INVESTMENT LTD. v. WARREN YUEN CHEONG LEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/1999

Where, on the historical facts, long acquiescence, the issuance of an occupation permit and the broader circumstances make governmental enforcement by re-entry merely fanciful or remote, the vendors have shown and proved good title; therefore the appeal is allowed and the trial judge's order restored.
4 Jan 2000

CHUN HON WAI AND ANOTHER v. JUNICHI TAKASHIMA

Citation

CHUN HON WAI AND ANOTHER v. JUNICHI TAKASHIMA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6794/1998

The executor was under an obligation to demonstrate that the property was capable of being sold notwithstanding clause 5 of the will restricting disposal of the residuary estate until the beneficiary reached 18; the executor failed to discharge that obligation and therefore the purchasers were entitled to relief in the terms ordered and the vendor's counterclaim was dismissed.
11 Jun 1999

Ng Lung Sang Anita v. Lam Yuk Lan

Citation

Ng Lung Sang Anita v. Lam Yuk Lan
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1999

The judge below properly exercised discretion in granting unconditional leave to defend because the purchaser's requisition and the enclosed architect's letter raised triable issues of fact about alleged unauthorised alterations and title; summary judgment under Order 86 was inappropriate and the appeal challenging that discretion is dismissed.
11 Jun 1999

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.

Citation

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP813/1998

The requisition regarding alleged unauthorised works was raised out of time and not within a reasonable period after receipt of title deeds; alternatively the Defendant had sufficiently answered the requisition by obtaining architect/surveyor reports showing no cocklofts; consequently the Plaintiff was not entitled to withhold completion, the Defendant lawfully terminated the Agreement and forfeited the deposit.