全景投資有限公司 AND OTHERS v. 程練傳 AND OTHERS

全景投資有限公司 AND OTHERS v. 程練傳 AND OTHERS

The court held there was no sufficient basis to imply an obligation in the 1994 Agreements or the Settlement Agreement that the 1st defendant or Madam Tam would procure conveyance of the village houses or grant parking rights; the Settlement Agreement did not create independent proprietary rights; the trust claim was defectively pleaded and struck out; evidence failed to prove failure to transfer WHC shares; accordingly the plaintiffs' contractual and restitution claims were dismissed.

Citation
全景投資有限公司 AND OTHERS v. 程練傳 AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pegasus View Investment Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: 2nd plaintiff; 3rd Plaintiff: 3rd plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 April 2013
Case Number
HCA2203/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Repudiation, Money Had and Received, Failure of Consideration, Share Transfer, Limitation
Source Language
EN
Contract Trusts Restitution Property Company Law Civil Procedure Implied Terms Repudiation +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pegasus View Investment Limited

1st Plaintiff

2nd plaintiff

2nd Plaintiff

3rd plaintiff

3rd Plaintiff

1st defendant

1st Defendant

2nd defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd defendant

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1994 Agreements and the Settlement Agreement gave rise to implied obligations on the defendants to procure conveyance of village houses and grant parking rights
  2. 2 Whether the defendants repudiated the agreements by the 29 September 2006 conversation
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to restitution for money had and received based on total failure of consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there was no sufficient basis to imply an obligation in the 1994 Agreements or the Settlement Agreement that the 1st defendant or Madam Tam would procure conveyance of the village houses or grant parking rights; the Settlement Agreement did not create independent proprietary rights; the trust claim was defectively pleaded and struck out; evidence failed to prove failure to transfer WHC shares; accordingly the plaintiffs' contractual and restitution claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order nisi that the defendants' costs of the action be borne by the plaintiffs