LEI SAI WA AND ANOTHER v. MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LTD

LEI SAI WA AND ANOTHER v. MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Paragraphs 32–44 and paragraph 45(5)–(7) do not disclose a reasonable cause of action for the $813,600 claim because, on the pleaded facts, the material and independent cause of the losses was the vendor Hamberg's inability to discharge the mortgage; Midland's alleged breaches could at most make it liable for the initial HK$90,000 deposit and related minor costs, not the broader market value and consequential losses claimed.

Citation
LEI SAI WA AND ANOTHER v. MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Midland; Vendor: Hamberg International Ltd; Mortgagee/bank: Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Case Number
DCCJ1782/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence and Contract (estate Agent) / Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) Judgment on 19 October 2010
Outcome
Struck out paragraphs 32–44 and paragraph 45(5)–(7) of the Amended Statement of Claim; the Plaintiffs' claim for $813,600 is dismissed; costs awarded to Midland with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Cause of Action, Causation, Agent's Duty of Care, Stakeholding of Deposits, Forgery Allegation, Frustration, Particularity of Conspiracy Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Property Law Agency Law Strike Out Cause of Action +6 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Midland

Defendant

Hamberg International Ltd

Vendor

Shanghai Commercial Bank Ltd

Mortgagee/bank

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence and Contract (estate Agent) / Striking Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) Judgment on 19 October 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs 32–44 and 45(5)–(7) of the Amended Statement of Claim disclose a reasonable cause of action for $813,600
  2. 2 Whether Midland's alleged negligence or breach caused the claimed loss in market value and other consequential losses
  3. 3 Whether an estate agent has a duty to investigate vendor's mortgage position or compel vendor to complete

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 32–44 and paragraph 45(5)–(7) do not disclose a reasonable cause of action for the $813,600 claim because, on the pleaded facts, the material and independent cause of the losses was the vendor Hamberg's inability to discharge the mortgage; Midland's alleged breaches could at most make it liable for the initial HK$90,000 deposit and related minor costs, not the broader market value and consequential losses claimed.

Court Disposition

Struck out paragraphs 32–44 and paragraph 45(5)–(7) of the Amended Statement of Claim; the Plaintiffs' claim for $813,600 is dismissed; costs awarded to Midland with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 32–44 and paragraph 45(5)–(7) of the Amended Statement of Claim struck out
  • The Plaintiffs' claim for the sum of HK$813,600 dismissed