LIK KAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. NEW CITY (H.K.) MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

LIK KAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. NEW CITY (H.K.) MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court refused to strike out the plaintiff's claim against D2 because, on the face of the existing pleadings, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff had no arguable cause of action; however the pleadings lacked sufficient particularity as to (a) the factual basis of any agency between D1 and D2 and (b) the factual basis for treating the air‑conditioning and fire‑fighting installations as common parts. The plaintiff was granted leave to re‑amend to plead particulars accordingly; costs were apportioned as ordered.

Citation
LIK KAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. NEW CITY (H.K.) MANAGEMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; First Defendant: D1 (management company); Second Defendant: D2 (Incorporated Owner of Yue Yee Mansion)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2006
Case Number
DCCJ207/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract, Agency, Unjust Enrichment, Property) / Interlocutory (striking Out and Re‑amendment Applications)
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to re‑amend; D2's striking‑out application not allowed to succeed at this stage
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Common Parts, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Building Management Ordinance Cap 344, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Agency Unjust Enrichment Property Law Procedural Law Building Management Striking Out Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

D1 (management company)

First Defendant

D2 (Incorporated Owner of Yue Yee Mansion)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract, Agency, Unjust Enrichment, Property) / Interlocutory (striking Out and Re‑amendment Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient factual particulars to sustain a contractual agency claim against D2
  2. 2 Whether the air‑conditioning and fire‑fighting installations worked on by the plaintiff constitute common parts of the building to which D2 owes statutory maintenance obligations
  3. 3 Whether an unjust enrichment claim against D2 is arguable on the pleaded facts

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out the plaintiff's claim against D2 because, on the face of the existing pleadings, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff had no arguable cause of action; however the pleadings lacked sufficient particularity as to (a) the factual basis of any agency between D1 and D2 and (b) the factual basis for treating the air‑conditioning and fire‑fighting installations as common parts. The plaintiff was granted leave to re‑amend to plead particulars accordingly; costs were apportioned as ordered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to re‑amend; D2's striking‑out application not allowed to succeed at this stage

Orders

  • Leave granted for the plaintiff to re‑amend its statement of claim in accordance with the summons dated 25/4/06
  • Leave granted for the filing of the affirmation of Wong Huk Kam for the O.18 r.19 application; costs of the summons of 30/6/06 to be costs in the cause of the striking out application