Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rescission/annulment

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2008

ETERNAL CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GREAT WIDE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

ETERNAL CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GREAT WIDE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2550/2007

The Notice of Annulment was invalid because the Vendor had not previously communicated any inability or unwillingness to remove the Purchaser's requisitions and lacked reasonable grounds to claim inability; although time was of the essence for Clause 13.1 and the Purchaser breached by delivering the draft Assignment late, the Vendor never accepted that breach as a repudiation and therefore could not rescind on that ground; accordingly the Agreement remained enforceable and the Plaintiff was entitled to a declaration, specific performance and damages to be assessed.
11 May 2005

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD

Citation

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2475/2004

Requisition No.3 was within Clause 11; the defendant had evidence that it reasonably believed it could not procure a certified copy in time and therefore was entitled to give five working days notice under Clause 11; the purchaser did not withdraw the requisition within the notice period and the Agreement was rescinded. Summary judgment for the plaintiff was refused because there was evidence supporting the vendor's reasonable belief of inability.
8 Sept 1997

TO KAM KWONG v. TSEUNG YUK CHU

Citation

TO KAM KWONG v. TSEUNG YUK CHU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP505/1997

Because the protrusions affected only Flats A and B and not the subject Flat C, and because the Vendor produced the Occupation Permit and Certificate of Compliance and had no further documentary proof of Crown consent or waiver, the Vendor was not obliged to obtain further confirmation from the Lands Office and the requisition was sufficiently answered; therefore the Purchaser's objection lacked substance and the originating summons must be dismissed with costs.
28 Jan 1992

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP91/1992

A purchaser who takes with notice of a deed of gift made within three years of death takes subject to the contingent estate duty charge even if the charge is latent and unregistered; the proviso to s.18(1) does not protect a purchaser with notice of the facts, and therefore the purchaser was entitled to annul the sale and recover the deposit.
23 Mar 1973

NG WING-SEE AND OTHERS v. CHANG CHI-CHING

Citation

NG WING-SEE AND OTHERS v. CHANG CHI-CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV58/1972

The court held that under Order 28 rule 7 a counterclaim in originating summons proceedings is not properly before the court unless made in the manner directed by the court; absent such a direction a judge has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the counterclaim. The judgment on the counterclaim was set aside and the appeal allowed; the defendants were denied a fair adjudication of their counterclaim.

Hong Kong Case Law

ETERNAL CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. GREAT WIDE INVESTMENT LTD

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD

TO KAM KWONG v. TSEUNG YUK CHU

LEE SIU MAN v. CHU CHI WING AND ANOTHER

NG WING-SEE AND OTHERS v. CHANG CHI-CHING