Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Requisitions on title

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2023

RESOURCES LEADER LTD v. HO NGO YING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2667/2018

Clause 20 of the Preliminary Agreement (the as‑is/cockloft clause) validly precluded the purchaser from objecting to the disclosed cockloft and its access; the Plaintiff's requisitions based on the Pau report dated 26 October 2018 were raised out of time (within 14 days of completion) and not waived; on the facts there was no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority in respect of the material UBWs and the Defendant had shown and was able to give good title; Plaintiff's claim dismissed and Defendant entitled to forfeit deposits totalling HK$3,568,000.
5 Jun 2023

LIU WAI YIN v. FAILIC TRADING CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP723/2022

On the evidence as a whole (1994 letter from Audrey, 1996 letter from Kenneth and affidavit of Deirdre) and applying the robust commercial‑reality test endorsed by authority, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any risk of a successful challenge by Audrey to the 2000 Assignment is remote and fanciful; accordingly the Defendant has satisfactorily answered the purchaser's requisition under s.55 PAO and has shown a good title to the Property; the Originating Summons is dismissed.
21 Sept 2022

AMPLE HAPPINESS LTD v. SUNRISE ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1007
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4328/2021

The vendor failed to satisfactorily answer the Layout Plan and Assent requisitions and therefore failed to show good title to the Property; s.68(8) PAO did not protect the Assent because there was no evidence of appropriation under s.68; an undertaking to produce the layout plan after completion did not cure the inadequate answers given before completion; consequently the defendant wrongfully forfeited the deposits and must return them with interest and accept specified ancillary reliefs.
13 Apr 2022

KU HIU YANG HAYLEY v. YANG LI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP666/2021

The court held the plaintiff failed to prove it could give good title because the Discharge remained a valid registered instrument that could not be ignored on the basis of an unproven presumption or unsubstantiated allegation of mistake; the plaintiff failed to obtain primary evidence or satisfactory confirmation from the parties who executed the documents and therefore did not sufficiently answer the defendant's requisitions, requiring dismissal of the summons.
31 Mar 2022

THAPA BISHNU MAYA v. CHAN SHIU LAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP230/2021

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole asserted ground — that the existence and registration of the District Court writ and water seepage litigation rendered the title bad — was not properly raised: the writ is not a registrable instrument affecting title and counsel ultimately conceded that the litigation did not affect title; accordingly the vendor was not shown to have repudiated or failed to give good title.
26 Jan 2022

WONG ANITA SHU TING (formerly known as Wong Shu Ting Anita) v. YUEN YIU CHUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP710/2021

The Court held that the 2010 Family Court Order made by consent together with the execution of the 2010 Assignment manifested a mutual agreement and course of dealing that severed the joint tenancy such that the Assignor's interest was effectively transferred to the Assignee; accordingly the Plaintiff has proved good title and has satisfactorily answered the Defendant's requisition and there is no real risk of a successful challenge by Hung.
19 Mar 2021

LIBRA SUMMER LTD v. DERECHO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 702
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP275/2020

Court held the Offer Letter and Acceptance Letter constituted an agreement for a new Government lease but there was insufficient evidence of any formal grant or replacement of ML139 Sec D by IL5735; absence of certified originals did not create a real risk of successful Government or other encumbrance given LACO correspondence, recitals in title deeds and the deeming provisions of s14 CPO; accordingly the vendor had adequately answered requisitions and had shown and given a good title so the purchaser's claims were dismissed.
22 Oct 2020

MULTI ELITE LTD v. LI YAN PING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1486/2014

On the facts the waiver clause in the Shop 4 appendix was drafted in clear, ordinary language and, taken with the factual matrix, fairly alerted a reasonable purchaser to the risk of unauthorised alterations/UBWs; the purchaser knowingly accepted that risk by signing the PASP and appendix. Defendant 1 had no actual knowledge of the alleged UBWs; even if knowledge were alleged the operative issue is construction of the waiver. Purchaser was therefore precluded from refusing completion on the basis of the alleged UBWs and repudiated the PASP; defendant 1 validly forfeited the deposits. Defendan…
3 Jul 2019

IP FONG KENG v. FONG YU SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP843/2017

The vendor/defendant failed to answer the requisitions satisfactorily: mere assertions of non-receipt, an unexplained offer of HK$6,000 and lack of evidence as to compliance or the cost of remedial works were inadequate. Consequently the defendant was not entitled to annul the sale on the basis asserted and the purchasers rejection of the vendors responses was justified.
17 Dec 2018

KINGDOM MILES LTD v. EVER CRYSTAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 967
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2017

The certified copy of the Conditions of Grant constituted sufficient proof of the Government lease under s13(1) CPO; the absence of the two historical letters did not create any real risk of an encumbrance on title and the vendor had adequately and candidly answered requisitions; accordingly the purchaser was not entitled to refuse completion and the Court of Appeal allowed the vendor's appeal, setting aside the recorder's declarations to the contrary.