Cheng Cheuk Leung v. Fong Shik Yee
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1505/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 November 2008.
1. The plaintiff was the purchaser and the defendant vendor of the suit Property by a Sale and Purchase Agreement provisionally on 8 August 2006. The formal Sale and Purchase Agreement was signed on 29 August 2006 and the completion date was eventually agreed to be on 3 October 2006. The purchase price was $2.5 million and the purchaser had paid 10% deposit of $250,000.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCMP1505/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.1505 OF 2007 ----------------------
----------------------
---------------------- Before : Hon Yam J in Court Date of Hearing : 18 September 2008 Date of Handing Down Judgment : 21 November 2008 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1.The plaintiff was the purchaser and the defendant vendor of the suit Property by a Sale and Purchase Agreement provisionally on 8 August 2006. The formal Sale and Purchase Agreement was signed on 29 August 2006 and the completion date was eventually agreed to be on 3 October 2006. The purchase price was $2.5 million and the purchaser had paid 10% deposit of $250,000. 2.The Property had subsequently become the subject matter of a Mareva injunction in another proceedings by another plaintiff. 3.On 9 August 2007, the plaintiff took out the present vendor and purchaser summons claiming, inter alia, specific performance. 4.However, on 4 January 2008, the Property was sold by the mortgagee bank to a third party at $3.7 million. This would defeat the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance and therefore the plaintiff is now seeking damages in lieu of specific performance. 5.On 12 June 2008, the plaintiff purchaser was paid back the deposit of $250,000. 6.The defendant has not shown any defence to the present proceedings. 7.I accept the submission of Mr Jimmie Ho, counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is entitled to damages on the date the claim for specific performance became aborted by reason of the sale of the Property by the mortgagee bank. This is according to the case of Johnson v. Agnew [1980] AC 367. The damages would be in the sum of $1.2 million, i.e. the market value of the Property as at 4 January 2008 when the Property was sold at $.7 million less the purchase price of $2.5 million. 8.Accordingly, there is a declaration that the defendant has wrongfully repudiated the Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 8 August 2006 as supplemented by the Supplemental Agreement dated 29 August 2006. 9.There shall also be judgment for the plaintiff :
10.Further, the plaintiff is entitled to costs of these proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Ho Chee Choi, Jimmie, instructed by Messrs Liu, Chan and Lam, for the Plaintiff Defendant in person, absent |
Other judgments that cite this case