Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requisition of title

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2011

SO MARIKO v. TSE CHUN CHUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SO MARIKO v. TSE CHUN CHUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2010

The Court held that, on the particular facts (statutory declaration by the handling solicitor, LPC having acted for the administrator and prepared the assignment, 12 years with no adverse claim, and the assignment's purpose), the vendors provided satisfactory conveyancing evidence to answer the requisition and show a good title; the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jun 2010

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG

Citation

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP8/2009

The court held that the vendor could not give good title to the glass-roofed area and enlarged sitting room because of encroachment and thus committed a repudiatory breach entitling the purchaser to accept termination and recover deposits; however the purchaser could not rely on a late requisition about the encroachment because the defect was patent and discoverable by due diligence (viewing the assignment plan), yet the purchaser's failure to raise timely requisitions did not constitute a waiver of the right to insist that the vendor give good title at completion.
29 Nov 2005

TAK CHEONG ELECTRONICS (HOLDINGS) CO LTD v. SUN DEXIANG

Citation

TAK CHEONG ELECTRONICS (HOLDINGS) CO LTD v. SUN DEXIANG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2483/2005

The defendant failed to answer a substantial requisition as to title satisfactorily and did not discharge the contractual obligation to show good title by the completion date. Time being of the essence, the plaintiff was entitled to treat the defendant's failure as repudiation and judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the summary judgment application.
25 Jul 2003

POLY TYPE INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHOW OI WAN MONITA

Citation

POLY TYPE INDUSTRIAL LTD v. CHOW OI WAN MONITA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2701/2002

The purchaser raised the new requisition out of time, had prior actual knowledge of the open kitchen at inspection which was used to negotiate the price, and failed to prove the defect went to the root of title (no evidence of structural alteration or breach of Buildings Ordinance); therefore the vendor was entitled to rely on the contractual timetable and forfeiture provisions and the plaintiff's claim for return of the deposit fails.
11 Jun 2003

PROFIT RICH ENTERPRISES LTD v. SKY TALENT PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

PROFIT RICH ENTERPRISES LTD v. SKY TALENT PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9119/1998

The defendant's requisition was out of time and did not go to the root of title; the defendant failed to complete its contractual obligations; the plaintiff validly terminated the contract, forfeited the deposit and is entitled to recover the resale deficiency and interest; mitigation was not pleaded or proved and the defendant's counterclaims are dismissed.
10 Dec 2001

GREEN PARK PROPERTIES LTD. v. DORKU LTD.

Citation

GREEN PARK PROPERTIES LTD. v. DORKU LTD.
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2001

The agreement, read with the annexed tenancy agreement and the plan shown to the purchasers, made the yard part of the subject-matter sold; the vendors could not on completion convey that interest and thus had a defective title. The purchasers were induced and entitled to rescind; the exclusion clause did not save the vendors under the statutory reasonableness test in s.4 Misrepresentation Ordinance read with s.3(1) Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
9 Jul 2001

LEUNG YUN ON v. POPULA INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

LEUNG YUN ON v. POPULA INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3970/1998

Judge found no fraudulent misrepresentation: plaintiff had in fact told purchaser the pool was unlicensed and testimony of purchaser and agent was unreliable; purchaser failed to requisition within contractual period and by forwarding an unconditional draft assignment waived objections; expert evidence showed the risk of government re-entry was remote so the unauthorised pool was not a defect going to the root of title; accordingly defendant was not entitled to rescind and plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and damages.
9 Jul 2001

POPULA INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LEUNG YUN ON

Citation

POPULA INVESTMENTS LTD. v. LEUNG YUN ON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1020/1998

Judge found no fraudulent misrepresentation (vendor had disclosed pool was unlicensed); expert evidence showed negligible risk of government re-entry so illegality did not go to the root of title; purchaser failed to requisition in time and by forwarding a draft assignment waived objections; therefore purchaser breached by refusing to complete and plaintiff was entitled to specific performance; defendant's defence and counterclaim dismissed.
27 Mar 2001

TECHTRONIC COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. v. KAMOS LTD.

Citation

TECHTRONIC COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. v. KAMOS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5660/2000

The court held that the description of 'Section E' was a descriptive or historical designation explained by the assignment preamble and a declaration; it did not amount to a fundamental defect in title. Therefore the purchaser was obliged to sign the formal agreement, follow the contractual requisition procedure under clause 9(1) and could not validly rescind immediately; the purchaser was in breach and liable to forfeit the deposit.
19 May 1999

LAU KWOK WO VILUSCO v. LUK KAM TONG BENJAMIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWOK WO VILUSCO v. LUK KAM TONG BENJAMIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3210/1998

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had a substantial unexplained delay of six months, the asserted financial difficulty was not an acceptable excuse, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success since requisitions raised on the day of completion did not justify treating the defendants as having repudiated the contract; therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion in the applicant's favor.