Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000022/2001 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 6 December 2001 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – great general and public importance – tenancy – subject to contract – deposit – non-refundable – consideration – restitution – Chillingworth v Esche [1924] 1 Ch 97 – Howe v Smith (1884) 27 Ch D 89 – The parties entered into a 'subject to contract' tenancy agreement where the proposed tenant paid a deposit that was stated to be non-refundable if he did not proceed. The intended tenant withdrew and sought return of the deposit. The District Court found an implied request to forbear and ruled for the landlord. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the agreement was subject to contract, the deposit lacked consideration, and the tenant was entitled to restitution. The landlord sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on three questions. The Appeal Committee held that none of the questions raised issues of great general and public importance, as the arrangement was unusual and the courts below applied well-established principles. The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal on questions of great general and public importance · Effectiveness of non-refundable deposit clause in subject-to-contract agreement · Consideration for pre-contractual deposit
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.