STEWART WILLIAM GEORGE ELLIOTT AND ANOTHER v. SLIPFORM ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER

STEWART WILLIAM GEORGE ELLIOTT AND ANOTHER v. SLIPFORM ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER

The Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim: there were seriously disputed facts as to whether the Second Agreement was concluded on 18 November 1996 making strike out inappropriate, and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend to plead repudiation of the First Agreement and loss of opportunity which cured...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
STEWART WILLIAM GEORGE ELLIOTT AND ANOTHER v. SLIPFORM ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Stewart William George Elliott; 2nd Plaintiff: Slipform Engineering 2000 Limited; 1st Defendant: Slipform Engineering Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hopewell Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 January 2002
Case Number
HCA9960/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract and Remedies) / Judgment on Appeal From Master Jones on an Application to Strike Out Under Order 18, Rule 19
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master Jones dated 13 June 2001 set aside; defendants' application to strike out dismissed; leave granted to plaintiffs to amend Statement of Claim; defendants granted liberty to amend Defence; costs to be the subject of written submissions.
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Repudiation, Option to Convert Loan, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Procedure for Striking Out Remedies Oral Agreement Strike Out Abuse of Process +4 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stewart William George Elliott

1st Plaintiff

Slipform Engineering 2000 Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Slipform Engineering Limited

1st Defendant

Hopewell Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract and Remedies) / Judgment on Appeal From Master Jones on an Application to Strike Out Under Order 18, Rule 19

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs pleaded a sustainable cause of action based on two alleged oral agreements (First and Second Agreements)
  2. 2 Whether the defendants established that the claim was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process requiring strike out
  3. 3 Whether there was a concluded contract on 18 November 1996 (Second Agreement)

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim: there were seriously disputed facts as to whether the Second Agreement was concluded on 18 November 1996 making strike out inappropriate, and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend to plead repudiation of the First Agreement and loss of opportunity which cured defects that would otherwise have rendered parts of the claim frivolous; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Master's order set aside and the defendants' strike out application dismissed, with leave to file amended pleadings and consequential amendments by defendants and costs to be determined.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Master Jones dated 13 June 2001 set aside; defendants' application to strike out dismissed; leave granted to plaintiffs to amend Statement of Claim; defendants granted liberty to amend Defence; costs to be the subject of written submissions.

Orders

  • Order setting aside Master Jones's 13 June 2001 striking out order and dismissing defendants' strike out application
  • Leave granted to plaintiffs to file and serve Amended Statement of Claim within 7 days from judgment date