LAU WANG KEI TERRENCE AND ANOTHER v. YU FUNG LIN

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 Whether purchasers were entitled to postpone completion from 13 December 2004 to 15 December 2004
  2. 2 Whether clause 11(a) or the contract implied an automatic 7-working-day postponement following replies to requisitions
  3. 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