RICH LUCKY PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SIU PING SIU AND ANOTHER

RICH LUCKY PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SIU PING SIU AND ANOTHER

Given clause 3 of the Joint Venture Agreement and surrounding evidence indicating the sale may be a virtual sham and that the stated price was not genuine, there are substantive issues of legality and enforceability requiring trial; therefore summary judgment for specific performance was inappropriate and the defendants must be granted leave to defend.

Citation
RICH LUCKY PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SIU PING SIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Rich Lucky Properties Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Siu Ping Siu; 2nd Defendant: Leung Woon Lin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 2012
Case Number
HCA618/2011
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance of Sale and Purchase Agreement (land) / Appeal Against Order for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; unconditional leave to defend granted.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Joint Venture, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment, Illegality, Small House Policy
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Agreement Joint Venture Misrepresentation +3 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rich Lucky Properties Development Limited

Plaintiff

Siu Ping Siu

1st Defendant

Leung Woon Lin

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance of Sale and Purchase Agreement (land) / Appeal Against Order for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment for specific performance was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement was a genuine, enforceable contract separate from the Joint Venture Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the parties' Joint Venture Agreement and clause 3 rendered the sale a sham or tainted by illegality

Ratio Decidendi

Given clause 3 of the Joint Venture Agreement and surrounding evidence indicating the sale may be a virtual sham and that the stated price was not genuine, there are substantive issues of legality and enforceability requiring trial; therefore summary judgment for specific performance was inappropriate and the defendants must be granted leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; unconditional leave to defend granted.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Dismiss the order 86 summons with costs, with certificate for counsel