MARK HONOUR LTD v. YAU WAI AND OTHERS

MARK HONOUR LTD v. YAU WAI AND OTHERS

Court held plaintiffs were entitled to rescind and recover purchase monies because Mark Honour failed to establish, on balance, the required causal link that conspiratorial/disruptive acts by purchasers caused failure to obtain the occupation permit by the contractual deadline; the pleaded sweeping implied terms were rejected as inappropriate; the 6th EOT had previously been held invalid and, even assuming some purchasers acted in concert, Mark Honour did not prove factual or legal causation of the OP delay nor proved loss arising from any limited conspiracy, therefore Mark Honour's claims dismissed and judgment for plaintiffs granted in rescission and repayment with interest.

Citation
MARK HONOUR LTD v. YAU WAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs (1st): Yau Wai and Ho Wing Shan; Plaintiff (2nd): Lo Kam Chuen; Plaintiffs (4th): Lai Gum Chee and Lai Chi Yiu; Plaintiff (5th): So Cheung Shing; Plaintiffs (6th): Chung Tak Ming and Chan Suet Fong Susanna; Plaintiffs (8th): Tang Wai Bing, Tang Wai Ying and Chui Wai Hung; Plaintiffs (9th): Shek Chung Shing and Mok Kam Tak; Plaintiffs (10th): Lee Siu Chung Tommy and Keung Pui On Patty; Plaintiff (11th): Wun Chi Wai; Plaintiffs (12th): Sze Fu Man Leon and Wong Mei Chun Phoebe; Plaintiffs (13th): Cheng For Shing and Loo Sai Mui; Plaintiffs (15th): Shen Peter Zhongquan also known as Peter Sim Tong Chuan and Foo Mei Lin; Defendant in HCA 9627/2000; Plaintiff in HCA 1519/2001: Mark Honour Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Case Number
HCA1519/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Consolidated Actions Concerning Late Completion of Development and Counterclaim for Conspiracy / Judgment Following Full Trial (judgment Dated 30 June 2004)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs in HCA 9627/2000 (rescission and repayment); Mark Honour Limited's claim in HCA 1519/2001 dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission, Extension of Time, Occupation Permit, Implied Terms, Conspiracy to Injure, Causation (factual and Legal), Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Tort (conspiracy) Property Development Construction Law Civil Procedure Rescission Extension of Time Occupation Permit +5 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yau Wai and Ho Wing Shan

Plaintiffs (1st)

Lo Kam Chuen

Plaintiff (2nd)

Lai Gum Chee and Lai Chi Yiu

Plaintiffs (4th)

So Cheung Shing

Plaintiff (5th)

Chung Tak Ming and Chan Suet Fong Susanna

Plaintiffs (6th)

Tang Wai Bing, Tang Wai Ying and Chui Wai Hung

Plaintiffs (8th)

Shek Chung Shing and Mok Kam Tak

Plaintiffs (9th)

Lee Siu Chung Tommy and Keung Pui On Patty

Plaintiffs (10th)

Wun Chi Wai

Plaintiff (11th)

Sze Fu Man Leon and Wong Mei Chun Phoebe

Plaintiffs (12th)

Cheng For Shing and Loo Sai Mui

Plaintiffs (13th)

Shen Peter Zhongquan also known as Peter Sim Tong Chuan and Foo Mei Lin

Plaintiffs (15th)

Mark Honour Limited

Defendant in HCA 9627/2000; Plaintiff in HCA 1519/2001

Procedural Posture

Civil Consolidated Actions Concerning Late Completion of Development and Counterclaim for Conspiracy / Judgment Following Full Trial (judgment Dated 30 June 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchasers were entitled to rescind sale and purchase agreements due to late completion and failure to obtain occupation permit by contractual deadline
  2. 2 Validity and timing of extensions of time (EOT), including the 6th EOT
  3. 3 Whether an actionable conspiracy or combination existed among purchasers to disrupt construction

Ratio Decidendi

Court held plaintiffs were entitled to rescind and recover purchase monies because Mark Honour failed to establish, on balance, the required causal link that conspiratorial/disruptive acts by purchasers caused failure to obtain the occupation permit by the contractual deadline; the pleaded sweeping implied terms were rejected as inappropriate; the 6th EOT had previously been held invalid and, even assuming some purchasers acted in concert, Mark Honour did not prove factual or legal causation of the OP delay nor proved loss arising from any limited conspiracy, therefore Mark Honour's claims dismissed and judgment for plaintiffs granted in rescission and repayment with interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs in HCA 9627/2000 (rescission and repayment); Mark Honour Limited's claim in HCA 1519/2001 dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that sale and purchase agreements were rescinded for the plaintiffs who proceeded at trial
  • Order for repayment of purchase moneys to each successful plaintiff with interest up to judgment date