TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YIU SUN HUNG

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YIU SUN HUNG

The application for leave and extension of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the appeal: the implied term is unnecessary or imprecise and therefore not arguable except for alternative formulations; the prevention principle cannot be shown arguable as extending beyond a contractual wrong; the challenge to the notice to complete failed; consequently there is no basis to extend time or grant leave.

Citation
TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YIU SUN HUNG
Parties
Applicant (defendant): bjbj; Respondent (plaintiff): Plaintiff
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2005
Case Number
DCCJ569/2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) and Extension of Time / Hearing and Determination of Leave and Extension Application
Outcome
Both applications dismissed; extension of time refused; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Prevention Principle, Notice to Complete, Extension of Time, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Appeals Implied Terms Prevention Principle Notice to Complete Extension of Time Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

bjbj

Applicant (defendant)

Plaintiff

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) and Extension of Time / Hearing and Determination of Leave and Extension Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time for leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the term sought to be implied into the contract is necessary and sufficiently certain
  3. 3 Whether the prevention principle can found a wrong outside a contractual context

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave and extension of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the appeal: the implied term is unnecessary or imprecise and therefore not arguable except for alternative formulations; the prevention principle cannot be shown arguable as extending beyond a contractual wrong; the challenge to the notice to complete failed; consequently there is no basis to extend time or grant leave.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed; extension of time refused; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Both applications are formally dismissed
  • The defendant (applicant) shall pay costs to the plaintiff (respondent) with a certificate for counsel