WINNER MANAGEMENT LTD v. GOLDSWIN INVESTMENT LTD

WINNER MANAGEMENT LTD v. GOLDSWIN INVESTMENT LTD

The tribunal's factual finding that the applicant was not the manager's delegate or contractor is supported by the contemporaneous documents which describe the applicant as principal and contain no express appointment; the DMC does not clearly confer on the manager a function to provide or delegate provision of a/c...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WINNER MANAGEMENT LTD v. GOLDSWIN INVESTMENT LTD
Parties
Claimant: Winner Management Limited; Defendants: Four shop owners at Ma On Shan podium (unnamed)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Case Number
HCSA53/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance (cap 338) S28(1)(a) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Deed of Mutual Covenant, Appointment of Manager/contractor, Delegation of Managerial Powers, Termination of Service by Occupiers, Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal
Source Language
en
Property Law Contract Law Agency Law Procedural Law Deed of Mutual Covenant Appointment of Manager/contractor Delegation of Managerial Powers Termination of Service by Occupiers +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winner Management Limited

Claimant

Four shop owners at Ma On Shan podium (unnamed)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance (cap 338) S28(1)(a) / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was validly appointed by the manager as the manager's delegate/contractor to provide central air-conditioning service
  2. 2 Whether the manager had power under the DMC to appoint or delegate provision of a/c service
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were entitled to terminate the a/c service and refuse payment

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's factual finding that the applicant was not the manager's delegate or contractor is supported by the contemporaneous documents which describe the applicant as principal and contain no express appointment; the DMC does not clearly confer on the manager a function to provide or delegate provision of a/c service, so the managers lacked authority to bind occupiers in that respect; accordingly no question of law was established and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused