CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU KOON FOO AND ANOTHER

CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU KOON FOO AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the Court of Appeal was duly constituted: parties gave undertakings in open court and are estopped/treated as having waived the requirement to file written consents so the two-judge bench had jurisdiction; and (2) on proper construction of the settlement agreement clauses 13–17 the contract was automatically cancelled under clause 15 when DLO consent was not obtained by the Long Stop Date, so the appellants were not entitled to specific performance.

Citation
CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU KOON FOO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Appellant: Champion Concord Limited; 2nd Appellant: Craigside Investments Limited; 1st Respondent: Lau Koon Foo; 2nd Respondent: The District Lands Officer, Sai Kung
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Case Number
FACV16/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Final Appeal to Court of Final Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (reasons Handed Down)
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contract Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Estoppel, Waiver, Leave to Appeal, Settlement Agreement, Land Premium Consent
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Specific Performance Contract Interpretation Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Estoppel +4 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Champion Concord Limited

1st Appellant

Craigside Investments Limited

2nd Appellant

Lau Koon Foo

1st Respondent

The District Lands Officer, Sai Kung

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Final Appeal to Court of Final Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (reasons Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was duly constituted when it sat with two judges under s.34B(4) of the High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether undertakings, estoppel or waiver can cure the absence of a filed written consent under s.34B(4)(c)
  3. 3 Proper construction of clauses 13-17 of the settlement agreement concerning Long Stop Date and Extended Long Stop Date

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the Court of Appeal was duly constituted: parties gave undertakings in open court and are estopped/treated as having waived the requirement to file written consents so the two-judge bench had jurisdiction; and (2) on proper construction of the settlement agreement clauses 13–17 the contract was automatically cancelled under clause 15 when DLO consent was not obtained by the Long Stop Date, so the appellants were not entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Summons for leave to raise jurisdictional issue dismissed