LAM WOR LAM v. ZHOU LI QIONG AND ANOTHER

LAM WOR LAM v. ZHOU LI QIONG AND ANOTHER

The court held that the 1st defendant was entitled to the requested particulars because the plaintiff, having pleaded that the 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's lawful attorney, must give full particulars of the material facts relied on to prove that allegation; the plaintiff's asserted presumption of agency was unsupported and could not deprive the 1st defendant of the right to defend her case; accordingly the summons for particulars was granted and costs awarded to the 1st defendant in a reduced sum of HKD 15,000.

Citation
LAM WOR LAM v. ZHOU LI QIONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: LAM WOR LAM; 1st Defendant: ZHOU LI QIONG; 2nd Defendant: WONG LAI HA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2012
Case Number
HCA1154/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (specific Performance and Damages) / Interlocutory Application Disposed on Paper (order 32 R.11 A)
Outcome
Summons for particulars granted; plaintiff ordered to provide particulars; costs awarded to 1st defendant in the sum of HKD 15,000; hearing vacated.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Particulars, Authority of Agent/attorney, Burden of Proof, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Agency Civil Procedure Equity Specific Performance Particulars Authority of Agent/attorney +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAM WOR LAM

Plaintiff

ZHOU LI QIONG

1st Defendant

WONG LAI HA

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (specific Performance and Damages) / Interlocutory Application Disposed on Paper (order 32 R.11 A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff must give further and better particulars supporting the allegation that the 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's lawful attorney/agent
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's asserted presumption of agency from signature on the provisional agreement shifts the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded and in what amount

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 1st defendant was entitled to the requested particulars because the plaintiff, having pleaded that the 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's lawful attorney, must give full particulars of the material facts relied on to prove that allegation; the plaintiff's asserted presumption of agency was unsupported and could not deprive the 1st defendant of the right to defend her case; accordingly the summons for particulars was granted and costs awarded to the 1st defendant in a reduced sum of HKD 15,000.

Court Disposition

Summons for particulars granted; plaintiff ordered to provide particulars; costs awarded to 1st defendant in the sum of HKD 15,000; hearing vacated.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to give the particulars requested by the 1st defendant within 14 days from the date of the decision
  • Plaintiff to pay costs to the 1st defendant in the sum of HKD 15,000 within 14 days from the date of the decision unless parties apply to vary the costs order by 26 November 2012 pursuant to Order 42 r.5B(6) RHC