Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Title defects and requisitions

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2022

HO TIN HONG v. CHAN YUK LIN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 349
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4325/2020

Defendant failed to provide timely and sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of non-execution or to show that the Company validly executed the Release before completion; there was no arguable defence that the completion date was validly postponed; accordingly the vendor repudiated the SPA, the purchaser validly rescinded on 31 July 2020 and is entitled to summary judgment for return of deposits with interest and costs (less a specified reduction); equitable lien not granted because it would affect a third party purchaser not before the court.
4 Jul 2018

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2016

On the facts the vendors failed to deliver vacant possession of Office 2B, Unit 5C and Unit 5D because the chattels and debris substantially interfered with occupation; the vendors failed to satisfactorily answer Requisition 2 (unexplained Certificate addressed to Ying Fung raising real risk of third party interest) and Requisition 6 (undischarged MBIS/MWIS notices which constitute a potential blot on title under the Building Ordinance and s33(9)); accordingly the vendors failed to show good title and the purchaser was entitled to accept the vendors' repudiation and terminate the agreement.
29 Dec 2014

CHANNEL GREEN LTD v. HUGE GRAND LTD

Citation

CHANNEL GREEN LTD v. HUGE GRAND LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/2013

Clause 30, read in its natural and ordinary meaning and the factual matrix, precluded the purchaser from raising requisitions or delaying completion on grounds of any unauthorized additions, alterations or illegal structures irrespective of whether the legal basis is the Buildings Ordinance, the Government Lease (SC7/SC8) or the Deed of Mutual Covenant; the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the defects; and the 15% deposit was not an unenforceable penalty on the facts, so the defendant was entitled to forfeit the deposit and the appeal was dismissed.
17 Jan 2006

TONY INVESTMENTS LTD v. FUNG SUN KWAN BERNARD

Citation

TONY INVESTMENTS LTD v. FUNG SUN KWAN BERNARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP180/2005

The Vendor had no title to the Former Slipway because rights were extinguished by s10(1)(a) FSRO; the Vendor failed to show good title by reasonable answers to requisitions; the common mistake defence failed because performance was not impossible and Vendor had a contractual right to a re-grant; accordingly specific performance was ordered requiring Vendor to apply for and obtain re-grant at nominal premium and to perform the Memorandum of Agreement, with an inquiry as to damages and costs against the Vendor.
27 Jan 2000

IP CHO SAU AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG KAI CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

IP CHO SAU AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG KAI CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1288/1998

Although unauthorized works constituted a defect in title and the time limit for requisitions did not apply to matters not apparent on title deeds, the purchasers repudiated the contract prematurely before the date for proving title without first raising a requisition or giving the vendors an opportunity to remedy or respond; consequently the repudiation was wrongful, the originating summons was dismissed and defendants entitled to damages to be assessed and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

HO TIN HONG v. CHAN YUK LIN

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

CHANNEL GREEN LTD v. HUGE GRAND LTD

TONY INVESTMENTS LTD v. FUNG SUN KWAN BERNARD

IP CHO SAU AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG KAI CHEONG AND OTHERS