WONG WAI YI AND OTHERS v. YAU SUI CHUN JORESA

DCCJ 16194/2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16194 OF 2001

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The plaintiffs claim against the defendant, inter alia, for the return of deposit paid and the defendant also makes a counter-claim for various remedies. The dispute arose out of a property transaction which fell through because parties' solicitors could not resolve their differences over the requisitions raised by the plaintiff.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

2. On 11th February 2001, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase a flat in Wai Wah Center in Shatin ("the flat") for HK$ 1,180,000.00 and had paid a deposit of HK$ 118,000.00 to the defendant. The conveyance was to be completed on 12th march 2001. The plaintiffs' solicitors had on 21st February raised requisition regarding the signatures of a previous vendor, madam Li Lai Ying, on some of the title documents.

3. On the record, the first purchaser of the flat from the developer was a person by the name Li Lai Ying and a signature in Chinese characters of the name was written as purchaser on the assignment M/N 343483 dated 20th September 1986; the flat was sold in 1989 and an agreement for sale and purchase as well as an assignment for that purpose on 20th February 1989 and 7th April 1989 respectively were appended with signatures of Li Lai Ying in Chinese characters as the vendor. In all these documents, the same identity card number was written besides the signatures.

EVENT LEADING UP TO THE DISPUTE

4. The plaintiffs' solicitors took the view that the signature of Madam Li on the first title document in 1986, i.e. assignment 343483, was materially different from those on the subsequent documents executed in 1989. They then requested the defendant's solicitors to provide them with proper conveyancing evidence including a statutory declaration by Madam Li or copy of Madam Li identity card so as to prove that all the documents were executed by the one and the same person.

5. Not acceding to the request, the defendant's solicitors asserted to the effect that there was no problem with the signatures and so long as the Hong Kong identity card was correct, the form of signature was irrelevant. The matter could not be resolved in the end, as the plaintiff did not complete the transaction, the defendant forfeited the deposit.

ISSUES

6. Parties did not dispute that there was difference in Madam Li 's signatures on the relevant title documents but the question is whether the difference was so material as to give rise to reasonable doubt as to the identity of the signatory?

THE LAW ON DISCREPANCY IN SIGNATURE

7. It is settled law that if there is a material discrepancy, it is the duty of the vendor to supply adequate conveyancing evidence to resolve any doubt, since such discrepancy, if unresolved, might amount to a defect in title.

8. Parties have referred me to a number of cases, I'll list a few to illustrate the court's view of what amounted to material discrepancy in signature.

In Ma Chun -man v Yung, Yu Yuen & Co (1979) HKLR 26, the two questioned signatures were that one was written as T.C.Chan and the other in fair hand the full name of Chan Tat-cheong. The court was of the opinion that there was a plain dissimilarity in the signatures.

In Kan Wing-yau v Hong Kong Housing Authority (1988) 2 HKLR 187, a name Cheng Shu-cheung was signed in Chinses and on a later document it was also signed in Chinese but named as Winston Shu-cheung cheng. The court was of the view that the two signatures were different and a requisition was justified.

In National Giant Ltd. V Great Wise development Ltd. (1990) 1 HKC 166, the court took the view that the two signatures; one signed as Y S Chan and the other as Chan Yock sheung in full form were totally different and therefore would require proper conveyancing evidence.

In Lo Tai Yam v Hu Mu Simon (1997) 3 HKC 23, objection was taken as to the discrepancies in the signatures of Mrs. Gardner in the Memorandum of Agreement and in the power of attorney signed 24 years later. In the memorandum, the signature of Maria Gardner was written as three separate parts, whereas in the power of attorney, the signature of Maria Gardner was written as one word. The court was of the view that the two signatures were sufficiently similar given the very considerable lapse of time between their making. `

In New Jade enterprises Ltd. V Jing Ying She Ltd HCE 13764/1997, the court found that the difference between the two signatures was that on the first occasion the characters were written formally whilst on the second, 26 years later, they were penned more casually; the judge was of the view that he did not harbour concern that they were not of the same person.

DISPUTED SIGNATURE IN THE PRESENT CASE

9. The signature of Li Lai Ying was signed in three Chinese characters in full form on the title document in 1986, and the signatures on the title document in 1989 were also written in Chinese characters in the same order. The noticeable difference in handwriting is in the character of "Lai", the other two characters are more or less the same. On the first occasion, the character " Lai' was written in full form, and on the second occasion, it was written in a very similar way except that the top part of the word was scribbled with a stroke. Notwithstanding this difference, in my view, the two signatures were very similar in form as well as in style.

CONCLUSION

10. I do not find that there is material discrepancy between the two signatures of Li Lai Ying and therefore, the discrepancy did not give rise to doubt as to the identity of the signatory not being the same person.

11. I rule that the requisition raised by the plaintiff in the circumstances was not reasonable, or alternatively, had been satisfactorily answered. The defendant vendor has shown good title to the property in question.

12. Even if I am wrong about the signature, the same identity card number with which accompanied the signatures on both occasions, in my view, constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of the identity of the signatory and which should have put the matter beyond doubt.

ORDERS

14. As the defendant withdrew her claim for damages to be assessed at the hearing, I shall make no order for that.