CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GOLDEN RICH ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GOLDEN RICH ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

The Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim; the plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief because the pleadings and the Defence disclose real issues rather than an academic question and Howard v Pickford was distinguishable on the facts, so the appeal is allowed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
CHARTER VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. GOLDEN RICH ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Charter View Development Limited; 1st Defendant (respondent): Golden Rich Enterprises Limited; 2nd Defendant: Tsang Wing Kei Wilkie
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 2000
Case Number
HCA7056/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (declaratory Relief in Contract) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master Ho dated 26 November 1999 set aside; Statement of Claim not struck out; plaintiff awarded costs here and below.
Legal Topics
Repudiation, Completion Date, Deposits, Strike Out for No Reasonable Cause, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Declaratory Relief Agency Repudiation Completion Date Deposits Strike Out for No Reasonable Cause +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charter View Development Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

Golden Rich Enterprises Limited

1st Defendant (respondent)

Tsang Wing Kei Wilkie

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (declaratory Relief in Contract) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief that the 1st defendant repudiated the contracts by failing to complete
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded a reasonable cause of action or the Statement of Claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant is liable as agent for return of deposits and interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim; the plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief because the pleadings and the Defence disclose real issues rather than an academic question and Howard v Pickford was distinguishable on the facts, so the appeal is allowed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Master Ho dated 26 November 1999 set aside; Statement of Claim not struck out; plaintiff awarded costs here and below.

Orders

  • Order of Master Ho dated 26 November 1999 set aside
  • Statement of Claim against 1st defendant to stand: no striking out