LAU WANG KEI TERRENCE AND ANOTHER v. YU FUNG LIN
The judge found that on the pleaded case the Defendant had satisfactorily answered the Plaintiffs' requisitions by 9 December 2004 and the Plaintiffs had sufficient time to consider those answers before 13 December 2004; no term implying an automatic postponement of completion for seven working days should be implied in the contract against the background of the linked Head Agreement and sub-sale agreements; therefore there was no triable issue on the Defendant's counterclaim based on an entitlement to postpone completion to 15 December 2004, and judgment could be entered for the Defendant unless the Plaintiffs obtained leave to amend pleadings to raise an arguable defence (including an...
- Citation
- LAU WANG KEI TERRENCE AND ANOTHER v. YU FUNG LIN
- Parties
- Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendant
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 30 December 2005
- Case Number
- DCCJ6779/2004
- Procedural Posture
- Contract Dispute Sale and Purchase of Property (sub Sub Sale) / Application Under Order 14 for Judgment on Counterclaim (summary Judgment)
- Outcome
- Refused immediate judgment on the counterclaim to allow for possible amendment of the Plaintiffs' pleadings; refused Plaintiffs leave to defend on the current pleaded extension argument; granted Defendant leave to enter judgment unless Plaintiffs obtain leave to amend within 14 days; costs nisi order in favour of...
- Legal Topics
- Completion, Requisitions and Title Examination, Implied Terms, Summary Judgment (order 14), Breach of Contract
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Sale and Purchase of Property (sub Sub Sale) / Application Under Order 14 for Judgment on Counterclaim (summary Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether purchasers were entitled to postpone completion from 13 December 2004 to 15 December 2004
- 2 Whether clause 11(a) or the contract implied an automatic 7-working-day postponement following replies to requisitions
- 3 Whether there was a triable issue on the Defendant's counterclaim
Ratio Decidendi
The judge found that on the pleaded case the Defendant had satisfactorily answered the Plaintiffs' requisitions by 9 December 2004 and the Plaintiffs had sufficient time to consider those answers before 13 December 2004; no term implying an automatic postponement of completion for seven working days should be implied in the contract against the background of the linked Head Agreement and sub-sale agreements; therefore there was no triable issue on the Defendant's counterclaim based on an entitlement to postpone completion to 15 December 2004, and judgment could be entered for the Defendant unless the Plaintiffs obtained leave to amend pleadings to raise an arguable defence (including an...
Court Disposition
Refused immediate judgment on the counterclaim to allow for possible amendment of the Plaintiffs' pleadings; refused Plaintiffs leave to defend on the current pleaded extension argument; granted Defendant leave to enter judgment unless Plaintiffs obtain leave to amend within 14 days; costs nisi order in favour of...
Orders
- Refuse Plaintiff leave to defend the counterclaim on the current allegation of extension of time for completion beyond 13 December 2004
- Give Defendant leave to enter judgment on the counterclaim for a declaration that the Plaintiffs were in breach of the sub-sub-sale and purchase agreement and entitled to damages to be assessed unless the Plaintiffs obtain leave to amend their pleadings to raise an arguable defence within 14 days
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment