CHUI CHI TANG v. EDICO DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

CHUI CHI TANG v. EDICO DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The defendant's letter of 22 November 2000 amounted to a prima facie affirmation of the original 7 October 1991 agreement such that the defendant's strike out application based on section 4(1) limitation failed; therefore the statement of claim against the 1st defendant will not be struck out, while the claim against the 2nd defendant is struck out on plaintiff's concession.

Citation
CHUI CHI TANG v. EDICO DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: Madam Lai; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2005
Case Number
DCCJ3239/2005
Procedural Posture
Contract (refund of Deposit) / Chambers Hearing on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Strike out application dismissed as to 1st defendant; claim against 2nd defendant struck out.
Legal Topics
Affirmation of Contract, Time Bar, Strike Out Application, Limitation Period
Source Language
EN
Contract Limitation Ordinance Civil Procedure Affirmation of Contract Time Bar Strike Out Application Limitation Period

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Madam Lai

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract (refund of Deposit) / Chambers Hearing on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's action is time-barred under Limitation Ordinance s4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct (letter of 22 November 2000 and meetings) amounted to affirmation of the original agreement extending enforceability
  3. 3 Whether particulars pleaded by the plaintiff are sufficiently particularised and whether alleged extension agreements are void for uncertainty

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's letter of 22 November 2000 amounted to a prima facie affirmation of the original 7 October 1991 agreement such that the defendant's strike out application based on section 4(1) limitation failed; therefore the statement of claim against the 1st defendant will not be struck out, while the claim against the 2nd defendant is struck out on plaintiff's concession.

Court Disposition

Strike out application dismissed as to 1st defendant; claim against 2nd defendant struck out.

Orders

  • Statement of claim against 1st defendant not struck out
  • Statement of claim against 2nd defendant struck out