MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD

MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant's agent did not make the alleged oral representations and the plaintiff did not rely on them; plaintiff's witnesses were not credible and corrective information was available (sales brochure and WKLL meeting), therefore the counterclaim for misrepresentation failed.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 594
Parties
Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Mega Well Development Limited; Defendant (by Counterclaim): Centaline Property Agency Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2023
Case Number
HCA2194/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil — Misrepresentation Arising From Sale and Purchase of Property / Retrial on Liability (re Trial Pursuant to Court of Appeal Order)
Outcome
Plaintiff's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Reliance, Rescission, Rectification
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Property Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Reliance Rescission +1 more

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

Parties

Mega Well Development Limited

Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Centaline Property Agency Limited

Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil — Misrepresentation Arising From Sale and Purchase of Property / Retrial on Liability (re Trial Pursuant to Court of Appeal Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's agent made oral representations about extent of private roof
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff reasonably relied on any such representations when entering PSPA and SPA
  3. 3 Whether representations were fraudulent or negligent/reckless and standard of proof required

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant's agent did not make the alleged oral representations and the plaintiff did not rely on them; plaintiff's witnesses were not credible and corrective information was available (sales brochure and WKLL meeting), therefore the counterclaim for misrepresentation failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the plaintiff's claim
  • Order nisi that costs of the retrial, including all costs reserved, be to the Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed and paid by the Plaintiff forthwith; Certificate for two counsel