DECOR FLOORS ENGINEERING LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

DECOR FLOORS ENGINEERING LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found that Wing Hong, by permitting and instigating Tai Fong staff and office to be held out as Wing Hong representatives (signage, name cards, organisation chart provided to ASD, and a subcontract confidentiality clause requiring Tai Fong to represent itself as agent), created ostensible authority; accordingly Wing Hong is liable to the supplier under agency by estoppel for sums due and payable, while the plaintiff's direct claims against Tai Fong were dismissed.

Citation
DECOR FLOORS ENGINEERING LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: D Cor Floors Engineering Limited; 1st Defendant: Wing Hong Contractors Limited; 2nd Defendant: Tai Fong Engineering Hong Kong Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 November 2004
Case Number
DCCJ31/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (goods Sold and Delivered, Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant Wing Hong Contractors Limited for $296,726.00; claim against 2nd defendant Tai Fong Engineering Hong Kong Company Limited dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Apparent Authority, Agency by Estoppel, Goods Sold and Delivered, Offer and Acceptance, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Agency Construction Law Civil Procedure Ostensible Authority Apparent Authority Agency by Estoppel Goods Sold and Delivered +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D Cor Floors Engineering Limited

Plaintiff

Wing Hong Contractors Limited

1st Defendant

Tai Fong Engineering Hong Kong Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (goods Sold and Delivered, Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the four supply-and-lay contracts were made between plaintiff and Wing Hong
  2. 2 Whether the contracts were made between plaintiff and Tai Fong
  3. 3 Whether Tai Fong or its officer acted as agent of Wing Hong (actual or ostensible authority)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Wing Hong, by permitting and instigating Tai Fong staff and office to be held out as Wing Hong representatives (signage, name cards, organisation chart provided to ASD, and a subcontract confidentiality clause requiring Tai Fong to represent itself as agent), created ostensible authority; accordingly Wing Hong is liable to the supplier under agency by estoppel for sums due and payable, while the plaintiff's direct claims against Tai Fong were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant Wing Hong Contractors Limited for $296,726.00; claim against 2nd defendant Tai Fong Engineering Hong Kong Company Limited dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff against Wing Hong Contractors Limited in the sum of $296,726.00 with interest at prime rate plus 1% from date of the Writ to date of judgment and thereafter at the judgment rate until payment
  • Claim against Tai Fong Engineering Hong Kong Company Limited dismissed