LAM HON WING v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS

LAM HON WING v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS

Plaintiff failed to prove that the agents made actionable misrepresentations or that he relied on any such statements; the agency and preliminary agreements were valid and (though Regulation No 6 was breached) the breach did not bar recovery under section 45; the plaintiff breached the preliminary agreement by failing to complete (cheque dishonoured) and is liable to pay the contractual liquidated sum of HK$53,000 with interest.

Citation
LAM HON WING v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Lam Hon Wing; 1st Defendant: Centaline Property Agency Limited; 2nd Defendant: Mina WY Lau; 3rd Defendant: Aaron CK Lau
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ5441/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Agency/contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in favour of 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Agency Agreement Validity, Misrepresentation and Inducement, Liquidated Damages, Estate Agents Ordinance Compliance, Declaratory Relief, Costs
Source Language
EN
Estate Agency Law Contract Law Tort Misrepresentation Civil Procedure Agency Agreement Validity Misrepresentation and Inducement Liquidated Damages Estate Agents Ordinance Compliance +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Hon Wing

Plaintiff

Centaline Property Agency Limited

1st Defendant

Mina WY Lau

2nd Defendant

Aaron CK Lau

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Agency/contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd and/or 3rd defendants made representations amounting to actionable misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff relied on any alleged representation when signing the agreements
  3. 3 Whether the agency and preliminary agreements are valid and enforceable despite any regulatory breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove that the agents made actionable misrepresentations or that he relied on any such statements; the agency and preliminary agreements were valid and (though Regulation No 6 was breached) the breach did not bar recovery under section 45; the plaintiff breached the preliminary agreement by failing to complete (cheque dishonoured) and is liable to pay the contractual liquidated sum of HK$53,000 with interest.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in favour of 1st defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for 1st Defendant for HK$53,000 as liquidated damages
  • Interest on HK$53,000 from date of writ until judgment at 8% per annum and thereafter at judgment rate until payment