TRADE ADVISERS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. SILKART LTD. AND ANOTHER

TRADE ADVISERS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. SILKART LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court has jurisdiction under the general liberty to apply to give directions for working out and enforcing the January consent order (including specific performance and implementation of rights of way) but does not have jurisdiction to try the disputed factual issue of an alleged new oral agreement of 29 February 2000 that, if accepted, would alter the terms of that order.

Citation
TRADE ADVISERS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. SILKART LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Trade Advisers Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Liu Chi Sing; 3rd Plaintiff: Liu Chi Leung; 4th Plaintiff: Liu Fung Sum Benny; 5th Plaintiff: Liu Kin Chau; 6th Plaintiff: Liu Chi Lung; 7th Plaintiff: Liu Kin Tung Kelvin; 1st Defendant: Silkart Limited; 2nd Defendant: Tse Wing San
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2000
Case Number
HCA20671/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Specific Performance and Declarations / Preliminary Ruling on Jurisdiction and Summons for Further Directions Under a Consent Order
Outcome
Court rules plaintiffs may obtain directions to work out the January 2000 consent order but the court lacks jurisdiction to try the disputed factual issue of an alleged new agreement of 29 February 2000 that would alter the order.
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order, Specific Performance, Rights of Way, Jurisdiction to Give Directions, Agreement to Compromise
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Equitable Remedies Land Law Tomlin Order Specific Performance Rights of Way Jurisdiction to Give Directions +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Advisers Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Liu Chi Sing

2nd Plaintiff

Liu Chi Leung

3rd Plaintiff

Liu Fung Sum Benny

4th Plaintiff

Liu Kin Chau

5th Plaintiff

Liu Chi Lung

6th Plaintiff

Liu Kin Tung Kelvin

7th Plaintiff

Silkart Limited

1st Defendant

Tse Wing San

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Specific Performance and Declarations / Preliminary Ruling on Jurisdiction and Summons for Further Directions Under a Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under the general liberty to apply to give further directions to work out a consent order
  2. 2 Whether the January consent order was too vague to be enforced
  3. 3 Whether the court can try the disputed factual issue of an alleged new oral agreement said to vary the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under the general liberty to apply to give directions for working out and enforcing the January consent order (including specific performance and implementation of rights of way) but does not have jurisdiction to try the disputed factual issue of an alleged new oral agreement of 29 February 2000 that, if accepted, would alter the terms of that order.

Court Disposition

Court rules plaintiffs may obtain directions to work out the January 2000 consent order but the court lacks jurisdiction to try the disputed factual issue of an alleged new agreement of 29 February 2000 that would alter the order.

Orders

  • Ruling given that court has jurisdiction to give further directions under the general liberty to apply to work out the January Order
  • Ruling given that court does not have jurisdiction to try the disputed factual issue of the alleged 29 February 2000 agreement