Ho Chi Chiu and Another v. Billion Ease Corporation Ltd

Case No.HCMP 1628/2010

Court

High Court CFI

Date14 Mar 2011

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCMP 1628/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1628 OF 2010

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

	IN THE MATTER of two Agreements for Sale and Purchase both dated 3^rd April 2008
	and
	IN THE MATTER of ALL THOSE pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as LOT NOS. 1728, 287, 291, 404, 1635C, 945A, 400D, 284C, 1299C, 832, 960, 851, 854, 857, 878RP, 28, 1002, 1424, 1666, 926, 1727C, 1637A, 1672A, 298A, 202B, 958A, 875A, 818A, 399A, 403B, 1633C, 1633D, 1634B, 1636A, 1636C, 835, 874, 809, 831, 840, 841, 848, 1590, 821, 872A, 872C, 817B, 849A, 876ARP, 1664, 1681, 196, 147, 1578, 1604, 1620, 956A, 1053B, 1271A, 1421A, 1668A, 1460B, and 980A all in Demarcation District No. 290 together with the messuages erections and buildings thereon (if any) and
	IN THE MATTER of ALL THOSE pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as LOT NOS. 853, 869, 795, 797, 754RP, 1529, 1608, 1694, 1702, 870, 1431, 1435, 1599, 1701, 1706, 568, 1755, 1756, 83, 85, 88, 93, 97, 1313, 348, 230, 1273, 1279, 1462, 1466, 1475, 1218, 1219, 1556, 1559, 1570, 1720, 484, 1505, 1514, 1518, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724, 428, 1303, 1642, 1643, 1678, 414, 421, 1165, 1479, 347, 1687, 1688, 1696, 1019, 210, 365, 393RP, 1488, 1010, 1242, 1618, 174, 387, 419, 758, 1276, 998, 1746, 1143, 1012, 1281, 1286, 1287, 1456, 1473, 1122, 1597, 48, 50, 53 54, 56, 57, 58, 78, 79, 80, 82, 87, 201, 295, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 1103, 1110, 1111, 1116, 1169, 297, 330, 331, 332, 333, 1270, 1381, 1446, 1601, 1697, 455, 1032, 334, 335, 337, 338, 340, 445, 993, 306, 307, 339, 343, 394, 961, 1035, 89, 40, 55, 282, 305, 1201, 1358 and 1497 all in Demarcation District No. 290 together with the messuages erections and buildings thereon (if any)

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

BETWEEN

	HO CHI CHIU (何志超), the manager of HO SZ WO TONG (何四和堂)	1^st Plaintiff
	HO CHI CHIU (何志超), the manager of HO YIK HING TONG (何奕興堂)	2^nd 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 plaintiff Ho Chi Chiu is the manager of the Ho Sz Wo Tong and also the manager of the Ho Yik Hing Tong.

2.The Ho Sz Wo Tong being the 1^st plaintiff in these proceedings was and is the registered owner of the properties set out in the First Schedule to the originating summons and the Ho Yik Hing Tong being the 2^nd plaintiff was and is the registered owner of the property set out in the Second Schedule to originating summons.

3.On the unchallenged evidence before me I am satisfied that on 3 April 2008 the plaintiff Ho Chi Chiu on behalf of the two t’ongs entered into two sets of agreements for the sale of the properties to the defendant. The two agreements are referred to respectively, as the 1^st and 2^nd agreements in the originating summons.

4.In respect of the 1^st agreement the deposit paid was $284,112 and in respect of the 2^nd agreement the deposit paid was $713,568. Completion was to be on 3 October 2008. It was provided that time was to be of the essence of the contract.

5.It was also provided that in the agreements 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 agreements.

6.Prior to completion the vendor was to provide a good title in accordance with Cap. 219 and should produce the consent of the Secretary for Home Affairs for the sale.

7.On the evidence before me I am satisfied that completion did not take place due to the default of the defendant.

8.On the evidence before me completion was extended to expiry of the consent for the sale of the properties which consent expired on 15 July 2009 in respect of the properties owned by the Ho Sz Wo Tong and on 7 October 2009 in respect of the properties owned by the Ho Yik Hing Tong.

9.Despite the extension of time for completion the defendant has despite demands failed to complete the sale and purchase of the property.

10.I am satisfied on the evidence which is unchallenged that the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in the originating summons.

11.I give judgment to the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs as claimed in the originating summons at paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. I also make an 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