Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale of land

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2025

YAU SANG GALVANIZING (HOT-DIP) COMPANY LTD (formerly known as YAU SANG GALVANIZERS (HOT-DIP) COMPANY LTD v. FASHION TRESS (AMERICA) ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1702/2021

On the balance of probabilities neither party proved its pleaded case: plaintiff failed to prove the existence and terms of a licence; defendants failed to prove an enforceable oral sale and that Mr Choi had authority; absent contemporaneous documentary evidence and given inconsistencies in witness evidence, the alleged agreements were not established; accordingly both claim and counterclaim are dismissed and no costs ordered on a nisi basis.
8 Aug 2022

ASPAROUH IANEV DIMITROV as administrator of the estate of KALOIAN IANEV DIMITROV (Deceased) v. DOMINIC TAK MING LAU also known as LAU TAK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1146
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV568/2020

The Court held that the Charging Order registered as a nisi on 23 November 2017 had priority over the Assignment registered on 19 January 2018 by operation of ss 3(1) and 5A of the LRO and the relation back principle; an alleged oral gift of land was ineffective without the statutory deed formalities and the 2nd Defendant failed to prove any proprietary or promissory estoppel on the evidence before the judge; the judge did not err in deciding disputed facts on affidavit evidence where parties had agreed a paper determination; and the order for sale was a proper exercise of discretion.
8 Feb 2022

LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION D OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 19, TAI PO, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA208/2011

On the evidence the parties operated the development projects in the form of a partnership (Best Star used as the vehicle) so that Hung exercised partner‑level authority and his usual acts of selling developed units bound the partnership where done in the ordinary course. The court found insufficient, certain and consistent evidence to establish the alleged oral Lot 154 Agreement and Lot 2441 Agreement and therefore refused to enforce those alleged bargains; assignments to Lawin relating to Lots 154A‑E must be set aside as not bona fide in the circumstances and Hung is estopped as to his earl…
2 Mar 2021

黃德忠及另一人對黃炳城

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2188/2017

The court refused all three summons applications: the costs order dated 11 Aug 2020 is valid and plaintiffs may proceed with costs assessment under O.62 r.21; non-sale of the land within the six-month period does not deprive plaintiffs of the right to enforce the costs order and parties should apply if they seek extension or variation; the defendant cannot use these summons to collaterally attack or overturn earlier orders or obtain declaratory relief regarding title; the public notice was lawful; defendant must pay plaintiffs' costs of the summons to be taxed unless agreed.
4 Jun 2018

TSANG, HIN MING JOHNNY v. TSANG, HIN KEI JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA994/2015

The judge accepted the defendant's and witness Law's credible evidence and rejected the plaintiff's account; on the facts the subject agreement was a valid enforceable contract (not void for uncertainty) in the familial construction context, allocated responsibility for premium and set procedures; consequently the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the ground floor was dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for transfer succeeded in the terms ordered.
4 Oct 2016

TSANG WING MAN v. CHUNG ON LING

Citation

TSANG WING MAN v. CHUNG ON LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/2015

The written document was unenforceable because the completion date was uncertain and the agreement amounted to an agreement to agree; consequently it failed the statutory writing requirement in s.3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; alternatively the appellant breached oral deadlines and misrepresented material facts, entitling the respondent to rescind; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
17 Sept 2015

TANG CHAI ON AND ANOTHER v. TANG SING KI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG CHAI ON AND ANOTHER v. TANG SING KI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA207/2013

An interim stay of execution was appropriate because the merits of the time extension application and the intended appeal could not be assessed while the extension application was pending and partly amended; there was no imminent risk of sale and the plaintiffs did not establish irreparable prejudice. Costs of the stay application to that date were ordered in the cause pursuant to Ord 42 r 5B(6).
20 Jul 2015

JOIN WIN HOLDINGS LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOIN WIN HOLDINGS LTD v. CITY TARGET LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1188/2015

The alleged 1st Oral Contract is a contract for the sale of land and no written memorandum or signed agreement satisfying s3 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance was pleaded or shown; no part performance or other exception was pleaded; consequently the Indorsement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 1st defendant and must be struck out, and the lis pendens registered against the Property must be vacated.
8 May 2015

CHUNG ON LING v. TSANG WING MAN

Citation

CHUNG ON LING v. TSANG WING MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2012

The written agreement was unenforceable and could not be specifically enforced because it was one-sided, lacked consideration and was fatally vague as to completion; further, the plaintiff made an oral promise to complete by end August 2011 which she breached and whose misrepresentations and reckless conduct barred equitable relief. Consequently the specific performance claim failed and the registered charge was ordered vacated; the defendant was entitled to damages and costs.
4 Jun 2013

SIU KAI MING v. LAU SAI HING

Citation

SIU KAI MING v. LAU SAI HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2131/2008

The contractual provisions created a pre-emptive right (not an option); the Defendant failed to give the required written notice within the contractual time and did not validly exercise or preserve the right; consequently the pre-emptive right lapsed and the Defendant is in breach of contract for failing to convey title to the Plaintiff, entitling the Plaintiff to specific relief and consequential orders.