劉儀 對 寶石樓業主立案法團及另一人

劉儀 對 寶石樓業主立案法團及另一人

The court found documentary records and credible witness testimony established that the chicken‑wire and dog‑arm works were within the contractual scope (reflected by the increased contract price to HK$700,000) and that the triangular waterproofing was neither requested nor proven; the second defendant acted for the owners' corporation and bore no personal liability; the plaintiff's evidence was unreliable; therefore the plaintiff's claims were dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.

Citation
劉儀 對 寶石樓業主立案法團及另一人
Parties
Plaintiff: 劉儀; First Defendant: 寶石樓業主立案法團; Second Defendant: 黎漢邦
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ1423/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Judgment (regional Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Payment for Additional Works, Authority of Agent, Costs Assessment, Witness Credibility
Source Language
CH
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Variation of Contract Payment for Additional Works Authority of Agent Costs Assessment Witness Credibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

劉儀

Plaintiff

寶石樓業主立案法團

First Defendant

黎漢邦

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Judgment (regional Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three disputed works constituted additional work outside the HK$700,000 contract requiring extra payment
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant incurred personal liability independent of the owners' corporation
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's evidence established the claimed sums given documentary and witness evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found documentary records and credible witness testimony established that the chicken‑wire and dog‑arm works were within the contractual scope (reflected by the increased contract price to HK$700,000) and that the triangular waterproofing was neither requested nor proven; the second defendant acted for the owners' corporation and bore no personal liability; the plaintiff's evidence was unreliable; therefore the plaintiff's claims were dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs including previously reserved costs
  • Provisional costs order made; if parties cannot agree costs, the matter to be assessed by the Registrar (Regional Court)