MAN BON RESTAURANT LTD v. CENTA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

MAN BON RESTAURANT LTD v. CENTA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found, on convincing evidence (plaintiff's testimony, architect's admission, delivery of keys and exclusive use/maintenance), a common intention that the LMR and private lift were sold to the plaintiff and that the plans attached to the assignments were mistaken; accordingly the assignments were rectified to reflect that intention and relief granted to prevent unjust enrichment of the second defendant.

Citation
MAN BON RESTAURANT LTD v. CENTA HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Man Bon Restaurant Limited; 1st Defendant: Centa Holdings Limited; 2nd Defendant: Lau Chi Sang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 1987
Case Number
HCA5644/1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Property / Rectification of Deed / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted that the LMR and private lift form part of the plaintiff's property; counterclaim dismissed; rectification orders made; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Rectification, Common Mistake, Title Dispute, Unjust Enrichment, Possession
Source Language
EN
Equity Property Contract Civil Procedure Rectification Common Mistake Title Dispute Unjust Enrichment +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Man Bon Restaurant Limited

Plaintiff

Centa Holdings Limited

1st Defendant

Lau Chi Sang

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property / Rectification of Deed / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment and agreement should be rectified to reflect that the Lift Motor Room (LMR) and private lift were sold to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether a common mistake existed between the contracting parties as to the inclusion of the LMR
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant was unjustly enriched and whether rectification is available against documents involving third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on convincing evidence (plaintiff's testimony, architect's admission, delivery of keys and exclusive use/maintenance), a common intention that the LMR and private lift were sold to the plaintiff and that the plans attached to the assignments were mistaken; accordingly the assignments were rectified to reflect that intention and relief granted to prevent unjust enrichment of the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that the LMR and private lift form part of the plaintiff's property; counterclaim dismissed; rectification orders made; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration in terms of paragraph (1) of the prayer that the Lift Motor Room and private lift were sold to the plaintiff
  • Counterclaim by second defendant dismissed