ANGEL AND JAMES CO LTD v. TASTE FRESH CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

ANGEL AND JAMES CO LTD v. TASTE FRESH CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held that s.3(1) of the Misrepresentation Ordinance attracts the tortious measure of deceit (per Doyle v Olby) and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover all actual losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation; applying that test the specified heads were recoverable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $798,405.36 with interest and costs.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 836
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2018
Case Number
DCCJ4878/2016
Procedural Posture
Misrepresentation Arising From Franchise Agreement / Assessment of Damages (aod) After Interlocutory Judgment in Default of Defence
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd defendants for $798,405.36; interest and costs awarded
Legal Topics
Deceit, Measure of Damages, Causation and Remoteness, Franchise Agreement, Assessment of Damages, Misrepresentation Ordinance S.3(1)
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Statutory Misrepresentation Deceit Measure of Damages Causation and Remoteness Franchise Agreement Assessment of Damages +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Misrepresentation Arising From Franchise Agreement / Assessment of Damages (aod) After Interlocutory Judgment in Default of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tortious measure of damages for deceit under Doyle v Olby applies to s.3(1) of the Misrepresentation Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed flowed directly from the misrepresentation and are not too remote
  3. 3 Recoverability of specific heads: joining fee, franchise fees, decoration costs, stamp duty, forfeited rental deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.3(1) of the Misrepresentation Ordinance attracts the tortious measure of deceit (per Doyle v Olby) and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover all actual losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation; applying that test the specified heads were recoverable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $798,405.36 with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd defendants for $798,405.36; interest and costs awarded

Orders

  • Judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st and 2nd defendants in the sum of $798,405.36
  • Interest at judgment rate on $798,405.36 from 5 Oct 2016 until payment