MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO FOON YUNG ANESIS AND OTHERS

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO FOON YUNG ANESIS AND OTHERS

No representation by conduct was established; although the court found Mr Ho had represented that IO approval was not required, that representation was not material and did not induce the tenancy; plaintiff's other conduct affirmed the agreement and failed to mitigate; accordingly plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Citation
MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO FOON YUNG ANESIS AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: MASTER YIELD LIMITED; 1st Defendant Executrix: HO FOON YUNG ANESIS; 1st Defendant Executrix: HO FOON WAH; 2nd Defendant: CHUNG BOON HING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2012
Case Number
HCA866/2008
Procedural Posture
High Court Action Contract and Property Dispute (misrepresentation) / Judgment Following Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Injunction, Rescission, Damages, Mitigation, Affirmation of Contract
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Deed of Mutual Covenant Injunction +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MASTER YIELD LIMITED

Plaintiff

HO FOON YUNG ANESIS

1st Defendant Executrix

HO FOON WAH

1st Defendant Executrix

CHUNG BOON HING

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Action Contract and Property Dispute (misrepresentation) / Judgment Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a representation by conduct that air‑conditioners could be installed on the external wall of the Property
  2. 2 Whether there was a representation that no approval from the Incorporated Owners was required for such installation
  3. 3 Whether any representation was material and induced the tenancy agreement

Ratio Decidendi

No representation by conduct was established; although the court found Mr Ho had represented that IO approval was not required, that representation was not material and did not induce the tenancy; plaintiff's other conduct affirmed the agreement and failed to mitigate; accordingly plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claims dismissed with costs to the Owners to be taxed if not agreed