 [2023] HKCFI 944, a judgment handed down on 14 April 2023, the Hon Mr Justice Peter Ng ordered the return of a 20% deposit by the vendor to the purchaser after the termination of a sale and purchase agreement in respect of land.

The Court held that the law on forfeiture of deposits should not be confused with the law governing liquidated damages clauses and the doctrine of penalties, and reaffirmed the approach laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in 

 (2002) 5 HKCFAR 234 in determining whether a vendor is entitled to forfeit a deposit.

, instructed by Hoosenally & Neo, acted for the Plaintiff (by original action) and the 1

, instructed by Tony Kan & Co, acted for the 1

 Defendants (by original action) and the 2

, instructed by Nixon Peabody CWL, acted for the 3

 Defendant (by original action) and the Plaintiff (by counterclaim).

 [2023] HKCFI 944一案中，高等法院原讼法吴嘉辉法官于2023年4月14日作出判决，命令卖方在一笔土地买卖协议终止后向买方退还其预先支付的20%订金。

法院认为，没收订金的法律不应与有关约定违约金条款和惩罚性条款的法律混为一谈。就确定卖方是否有权没收订金方面，法院引用及遵从了终审法院在

（2002）5 HKCFAR 234一案中的判决理据。

（Ronny Tong SC）受何梁律师行（Hoosenally＆Neo）委托代表原告（原讼讼）和第一被告（反诉讼）；

（Mike Lui）受简松年律师行（Tony Kan＆Co）委托代表第一、四和五被告（原讼讼）和第二、四和五被告（反诉讼）；

（Jonathan Ng）受尼克松‧郑林胡律师行（Nixon Peabody CWL）委托代表第三被告（原讼讼）和原告（反诉讼）。

 [2023] HKCFI 944一案中，高等法院原訟法吳嘉輝法官於2023年4月14日作出判決，命令賣方在一筆土地買賣協議終止後向買方退還其預先支付的20%訂金。

法院認為，沒收訂金的法律不應與有關約定違約金條款和懲罰性條款的法律混爲一談。就確定賣方是否有權沒收訂金方面，法院引用及遵從了終審法院在

（2002）5 HKCFAR 234一案中的判決理據。

（Ronny Tong SC）受何梁律師行（Hoosenally＆Neo）委托代表原告（原訟訟）和第一被告（反訴訟）；

（Mike Lui）受簡松年律師行（Tony Kan＆Co）委托代表第一、四和五被告（原訟訟）和第二、四和五被告（反訴訟）；

（Jonathan Ng）受尼克松‧鄭林胡律師行（Nixon Peabody CWL）委托代表第三被告（原訟訟）和原告（反訴訟）。

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Law on Forfeiture of Deposits in Conveyancing Transaction Reviewed

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New