A WORKSHOP COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. TAM HEUNG MAN

A WORKSHOP COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. TAM HEUNG MAN

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's counterclaim as pleaded sought damages for breach not rescission and contained no pleaded acceptance of repudiation, the DPO's factual findings that the contract was affirmed (issue of cheque and subsequent messages) were open on the evidence and not perverse, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 332
Parties
Claimant/respondent: A Workshop Communications Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Tam Heung Man
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Case Number
HCSA46/2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal on Point of Law) / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal on point of law dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunal, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Duty to Investigate, Mitigation of Loss, Construction of Contract
Source Language
en
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Tribunal Jurisdiction Professional Negligence Breach of Contract Repudiation Jurisdiction of Small Claims Tribunal +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Workshop Communications Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Tam Heung Man

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal on Point of Law) / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's counterclaim amounted to acceptance of repudiation such that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the unexecuted term sheet wording constituted an express warranty or contractual term
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing late expert evidence on industry standards

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's counterclaim as pleaded sought damages for breach not rescission and contained no pleaded acceptance of repudiation, the DPO's factual findings that the contract was affirmed (issue of cheque and subsequent messages) were open on the evidence and not perverse, the application for expert evidence was late and would have prejudiced claimant and was unnecessary given the factual and contractual context, and the DPO did not abuse his discretionary duty to investigate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal on point of law dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs