CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS

The pleadings failed to allege facts capable of establishing that the 1st defendant had actual or ostensible authority to bind the 2nd defendant; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action in contract, the Quistclose trust claim falls with the contract claim, and unjust enrichment fails because any enrichment of the 2nd defendant was not at the 1st plaintiff's expense but at the 1st defendant's; therefore the claim against the 2nd defendant was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out.

Citation
CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chong On Nei; 2nd Plaintiff: England Corporation Limited; 1st Defendant: Han Chun; 2nd Defendant: China Fortune Finance Holdings Limited; 3rd Defendant: General (China) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Case Number
HCA995/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / Decision on Appeal From Master Lai's Striking Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Lai's order striking out and dismissing claims against the 2nd defendant upheld; costs awarded to 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Agency and Apparent/ostensible Authority, Quistclose Trust, Restitution/unjust Enrichment, Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19
Source Language
EN
Contract Trust Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure (striking Out) Agency and Apparent/ostensible Authority Quistclose Trust Restitution/unjust Enrichment Striking Out Under Order 18 Rule 19

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chong On Nei

1st Plaintiff

England Corporation Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Han Chun

1st Defendant

China Fortune Finance Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

General (China) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Striking Out Order / Decision on Appeal From Master Lai's Striking Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant had actual or ostensible authority to bind the 2nd defendant such that a contract existed between the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a Quistclose trust were pleaded and satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant was unjustly enriched at the 1st plaintiff's expense

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings failed to allege facts capable of establishing that the 1st defendant had actual or ostensible authority to bind the 2nd defendant; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action in contract, the Quistclose trust claim falls with the contract claim, and unjust enrichment fails because any enrichment of the 2nd defendant was not at the 1st plaintiff's expense but at the 1st defendant's; therefore the claim against the 2nd defendant was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Lai's order striking out and dismissing claims against the 2nd defendant upheld; costs awarded to 2nd defendant

Orders

  • Master Lai's order of 12 October 2015 striking out and dismissing the claims against the 2nd defendant with costs is upheld
  • Order nisi that the 1st plaintiff pay the 2nd defendant's costs of this appeal with a certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed