TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.

TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.

The court found the evidence warranted the inference that Miss Cheung was authorised by the defendant to sign the provisional rental agreement and that the claimant was a party entitled to the agreed service charge; the adjudicator erred in law by not drawing that inference; appeal allowed and judgment entered for the claimant for $14,000 with interest at 9.5% p.a. from 18 October 1992.

Citation
TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Tai Tung Realty (Agency) Company; Defendant/respondent: Moonba Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 June 1994
Case Number
HCSA3/1994
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; adjudicator's decision set aside; judgment entered for claimant
Legal Topics
Service Charge, Authority of Agent, Ratification, Without Prejudice, Damages, Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Agency Property Civil Procedure Service Charge Authority of Agent Ratification Without Prejudice +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tai Tung Realty (Agency) Company

Claimant/appellant

Moonba Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a party to the provisional rental agreement and entitled to the service charge
  2. 2 Whether Miss Cheung was authorized to bind the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the settlement and payments constituted ratification of the provisional rental agreement as against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the evidence warranted the inference that Miss Cheung was authorised by the defendant to sign the provisional rental agreement and that the claimant was a party entitled to the agreed service charge; the adjudicator erred in law by not drawing that inference; appeal allowed and judgment entered for the claimant for $14,000 with interest at 9.5% p.a. from 18 October 1992.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; adjudicator's decision set aside; judgment entered for claimant

Orders

  • Judgment for Tai Tung Realty (Agency) Company against Moonba Limited for $14,000.00
  • Interest on $14,000.00 at 9.5% per annum from 18 October 1992