In Many Gain Investment Ltd v Chan Fai Ho ([[2015] HKEC 1553, CFI) P, a property developer agreed to buy a property from D. P raised a requisition about D’s title and there was a dispute as to whether or not it had been properly answered. This dispute continued up to the contractual completion date of 31st May 2011. The parties agreed to extend the completion date to 14th June 2011. The next day, 15th June, D’s solicitors wrote to P’s solicitors requiring completion by 20th June. Despite this, on 16th June, D entered into an agreement to sell the property to another buyer. P now withdrew the requisition and sought specific performance. The question was whether P’s delay in completing amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling D to rescind.
Time was not expressly of the essence for completion and Anthony To J found that time was not impliedly of the essence in this case ([23]). The question then was whether the letter of 15th June made time of the essence (see United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904). As a matter of construction it did not. Anthony To J preferred P’s interpretation which was that the letter was no more than a demand that P should withdraw the requisition within 5 days ([24] – [27]).
For the sake of completeness, Anthony To J considered whether, if the letter were to be construed as a notice making time of the essence, the 5 day period it specified constituted reasonable notice. He held that it could have amounted to reasonable notice had D taken the necessary steps to make completion possible (including notifying P of the amounts of the split cheques that would be required on completion). The only other step to be taken within that time was that P had to decide whether or not it would insist on the requisition. As D had not taken the steps to make completion possible within 5 days, the 5 day period would not amount to reasonable notice ([33]).
P was granted the order of specific performance that it sought.
Michael Lower
