Ho Andrew Wai Yip and Another v. Billion Ease Corporation Ltd

Case No.HCMP 1627/2010

Court

High Court CFI

Date14 Mar 2011

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCMP 1627/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1627 OF 2010

-------------------

	IN THE MATTER of an Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 11^th June 2008
	and
	IN THE MATTER of ALL THOSE pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as LOT NOS. 664, 987B, 992A, 992C, 997, 1053A, 1102, 1299A, 1437, 1548, 1645, 1668B, 873, 806, 808, 819, 833, 865, 1423, 1593, 838, 850B, 818B, 862B, 843B, 207, 945B, 1585, 1594, 1725B, 284A, 399B, 400C, 403A, 187B, 209, 1631, 1633A, 1633B, 1637B, 1637C, 1673, 1676A, 1735, 1027, 298B, 293B, 1610 and 1717 all in Demarcation District No. 290 together with the messuages erections and buildings thereon (if any)

-------------------

BETWEEN

	HO ANDREW WAI YIP (何偉業) and HO JASON CHUNG WAI, the managers of HO SAI YING TONG (何世英堂)	Plaintiff
	and
	BILLION EASE CORPORATION LIMITED (怡憶有限公司)	Defendant

-------------------

Before: Hon Sakhrani J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 March 2011

Date of Judgment: 14 March 2011

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.The plaintiffs are the managers of the Ho Sai Ying Tong. At all material times the Ho Sai Ying Tong was and is the registered owner of the properties set out in the schedule to the originating summons.

2.On the unchallenged evidence before me I am satisfied that the plaintiffs had entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the defendant for the sale of the properties to the defendant.

3.The unchallenged evidence shows that completion of the sale and purchase was to be on 31 December 2008, time being of the essence of the agreement. A deposit in the sum of $299,968 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

4.It was also provided that the standard terms in Part A of the Second Schedule to the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219) were to be incorporated into the sale and purchase agreement. This provides for forfeiture of the deposit if the purchaser should fail to comply with any terms and conditions of the agreement.

5.On the evidence before me completion did not take place as scheduled.

6.I am satisfied that completion was extended to the expiry of the consent for sale from the District Office which consent for sale expired on 27 January 2010. That is clear from the evidence.

7.Despite demands made by letters from solicitors, the defendant has failed to complete the purchase of the properties within the extended period of time.

8.I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations sought.

9.I give judgment to the plaintiffs for the declarations as set out at paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the originating summons. I also order that the costs of these proceedings are to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

	(Arjan H Sakhrani)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr Anthony P. W. Cheung, instructed by Messrs Rene Hout & Co., for the Plaintiffs

Defendant, absent