Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resale deficiency

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2008

CREDIT WORLD LTD v. LAU SIU LAN

Citation

CREDIT WORLD LTD v. LAU SIU LAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16277/1999

The court accepted plaintiff's evidence, rejected the defendant's expert report as inadmissible due to lack of availability for cross-examination and insufficient proof of underlying comparables, adopted the actual resale price (HK$4,115,000) as the market measure, and assessed damages by calculating the deficiency and adding proved resale-related expenses and contractual interest, resulting in judgment for the plaintiff in the assessed sum with interest and a costs order nisi.
3 Apr 2001

Ng Kam Yuen Terence and Another v. Pun Yan Hing and Another

Citation

Ng Kam Yuen Terence and Another v. Pun Yan Hing and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11581/1998

The plaintiff elected to claim common law damages under clause 11(2); the correct measure is contract price less market price at the contractual completion date (27 May 1998). Applying that measure, using the resale valuation of HK$3,600,000 as market price, adding registration fee and crediting the forfeited deposit, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$2,538,210 with interest and costs.
9 Feb 2001

Chan Chan Cheung and Another v. Cheerrich Ltd.

Citation

Chan Chan Cheung and Another v. Cheerrich Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18579/1999

Clause 22 entitled the vendors to recover the deficiency on resale; vendors may also recover ordinary aborted sale expenses (estate agent commission and solicitors' fees) but not the vendor's separate compensation to a developer or purchaser's purchase commission which were too remote and unforeseeable; resale expenses falling outside the six month window in Clause 22 are not recoverable. Final assessment awarded HK$2,897,600 plus interest and costs of assessment.
26 Sept 2000

GOODJOY DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHENG TAI PUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOODJOY DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHENG TAI PUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8765/1999

Clause 16(3) governs recovery: the defendants contracted to pay the stated contract price ($5,091,492) so deficiency is measured from that contract price; the resale to an independent buyer within six months was bona fide; commission ($60,600) and legal costs ($20,000) are expenses attending the resale and recoverable; credit for the forfeited 10% deposit ($509,149.20) applies; judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st defendant for $622,942.80 plus interest from 20 July 1998.
11 Dec 1998

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN

Citation

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4391/1997

Clause 16 of the parties' Sale and Purchase Agreement modified the normal rule; the vendor was entitled to recover the deficiency equal to the contract price less the actual resale price, after crediting the forfeited deposit, and judgment was entered for the defendant on the counterclaim in the sum calculated accordingly (HK$1,121,200).

Hong Kong Case Law

CREDIT WORLD LTD v. LAU SIU LAN

Ng Kam Yuen Terence and Another v. Pun Yan Hing and Another

Chan Chan Cheung and Another v. Cheerrich Ltd.

GOODJOY DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHENG TAI PUI AND ANOTHER

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN