POLLARD CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG PRE-FABRICATED PRODUCTS LTD

POLLARD CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG PRE-FABRICATED PRODUCTS LTD

The court held that there was a triable issue whether a subsequent verbal agreement varied the written Agreement and that the alleged verbal variation was supported by consideration (mutual commercial advantage); therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the plaintiff was granted unconditional leave to defend the counterclaim.

Citation
POLLARD CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG PRE-FABRICATED PRODUCTS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (dccj 4418) and Defendant (dccj 4438): Hong Kong Pre-Fabricated Products Limited; Defendant (dccj 4418) and Plaintiff (dccj 4438): Pollard Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 August 2006
Case Number
DCCJ4438/2005
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14, Rules of the District Court / Decision on Summary Judgment Application (hearing in Chambers)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; unconditional leave granted to Plaintiff to defend counterclaim; costs ordered nisi in favour of Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Consideration, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Variation of Contract Parol Evidence Rule Consideration Summary Judgment

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Kong Pre-Fabricated Products Limited

Plaintiff (dccj 4418) and Defendant (dccj 4438)

Pollard Construction Company Limited

Defendant (dccj 4418) and Plaintiff (dccj 4438)

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14, Rules of the District Court / Decision on Summary Judgment Application (hearing in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a verbal agreement varied the written Letter of Acceptance dated 16 June 2005
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence/admissibility rules bar proof of a subsequent verbal variation
  3. 3 Whether consideration supported the alleged verbal agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was a triable issue whether a subsequent verbal agreement varied the written Agreement and that the alleged verbal variation was supported by consideration (mutual commercial advantage); therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the plaintiff was granted unconditional leave to defend the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; unconditional leave granted to Plaintiff to defend counterclaim; costs ordered nisi in favour of Plaintiff

Orders

  • Dismissal of Defendant's application for summary judgment
  • Unconditional leave granted to the Plaintiff to defend the counterclaim