FORDPOINTER SHIPPING CO LTD v. SINO DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

FORDPOINTER SHIPPING CO LTD v. SINO DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff acted reasonably in pursuing specific performance; because the remedy became aborted on 26 March 2004 (not by Plaintiff's fault) damages are to be assessed at that date: market value $23,400,000 minus contract price $13,475,000 equals $9,925,000; award interest at judgment rate from 30 January 2004; deposit not deducted.

Citation
FORDPOINTER SHIPPING CO LTD v. SINO DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Purchaser: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant Vendor: Sino Development Holdings Limited; 2nd Defendant Stakeholder/solicitors: Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2005
Case Number
HCMP292/2004
Procedural Posture
Breach of Contract Sale of Property (specific Performance / Damages) / Assessment of Damages Following Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Damages awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in sum $9,925,000 plus interest; costs awarded to Plaintiff for assessment hearing (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Damages, Measure of Damages, Mortgagee Power of Sale, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Damages Measure of Damages Mortgagee Power of Sale +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Purchaser

Sino Development Holdings Limited

1st Defendant Vendor

Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson

2nd Defendant Stakeholder/solicitors

Procedural Posture

Breach of Contract Sale of Property (specific Performance / Damages) / Assessment of Damages Following Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate date for assessing damages after repudiation and aborted specific performance
  2. 2 Measure of damages for breach of contract for sale of land
  3. 3 Whether deposit should be deducted from damages

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff acted reasonably in pursuing specific performance; because the remedy became aborted on 26 March 2004 (not by Plaintiff's fault) damages are to be assessed at that date: market value $23,400,000 minus contract price $13,475,000 equals $9,925,000; award interest at judgment rate from 30 January 2004; deposit not deducted.

Court Disposition

Damages awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in sum $9,925,000 plus interest; costs awarded to Plaintiff for assessment hearing (order nisi).

Orders

  • Award damages to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant in the sum of HKD 9,925,000
  • Interest on the damages at the judgment rate from 30 January 2004 until full payment