THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD

The court held that the conveyances and definition of common parts were not shown to be ambiguous such that subsequent conduct would be admissible to interpret them; interrogatories 1 and 2, which sought evidence of subsequent use, were therefore irrelevant and must be withdrawn; interrogatory 3, seeking documents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PARC REGAL v. PIZZICATO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): The Incorporated Owners of Parc Regal; Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff: Pizzicato Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Synergis Management Services Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2009
Case Number
HCA1587/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/contract Dispute Concerning Repair and Maintenance of Common Parts / Interlocutory Pre‑trial Applications (application to Withdraw Interrogatories and Application to Admit Supplemental Witness Statement); Trial Listed (6 Days)
Outcome
Interlocutory application partly allowed: interrogatories 1 and 2 withdrawn; interrogatory 3 permitted and to be answered; supplemental witness statement refused; costs ordered as stated below.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Conveyance, Admissibility of Subsequent Conduct, Interrogatories (order 26), Estoppel, Costs
Source Language
en
Property Law Contract Law Procedure Equity Tort (trespass) Interpretation of Conveyance Admissibility of Subsequent Conduct Interrogatories (order 26) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Incorporated Owners of Parc Regal

Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Pizzicato Limited

Defendant; Counterclaim Plaintiff

Synergis Management Services Limited

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/contract Dispute Concerning Repair and Maintenance of Common Parts / Interlocutory Pre‑trial Applications (application to Withdraw Interrogatories and Application to Admit Supplemental Witness Statement); Trial Listed (6 Days)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories seeking evidence of the defendant's subsequent use of common parts are admissible under Order 26 and relevant to interpretation of conveyances
  2. 2 Whether subsequent conduct can be admitted to interpret the conveyance under the ambiguity/boundary exception
  3. 3 Whether subsequent conduct can be admitted to found an estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the conveyances and definition of common parts were not shown to be ambiguous such that subsequent conduct would be admissible to interpret them; interrogatories 1 and 2, which sought evidence of subsequent use, were therefore irrelevant and must be withdrawn; interrogatory 3, seeking documents to determine what was conveyed (whether flat roofs were assigned), was relevant and must be answered by the deadlines ordered; the supplemental witness statement was inadmissible and refused; costs were ordered as set out.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application partly allowed: interrogatories 1 and 2 withdrawn; interrogatory 3 permitted and to be answered; supplemental witness statement refused; costs ordered as stated below.

Orders

  • Interrogatories numbered 1 and 2 are to be withdrawn
  • Interrogatory number 3 is allowed and Defendant must answer it