LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER

LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court held that the parties gave undertakings in open court which, together with waiver and estoppel, cured the absence of a filed written consent so that the two‑judge Court of Appeal was duly constituted; on the merits the settlement agreement was unambiguous and clause 15 operated to automatically cancel the contract at the Long Stop Date because clause 16 was only triggered by a contested refusal communicated on or before that date, therefore the appeal failed and the lower courts' orders were affirmed.

Citation
LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff; 1st Appellant: Champion Concord Limited; 2nd Plaintiff; 2nd Appellant: Craigside Investments Limited; 1st Defendant; Respondent: Lau Koon Foo; 2nd Defendant; Respondent: District Lands Officer, Sai Kung
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2011
Case Number
FACV17/2010
Procedural Posture
Final Civil Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Hearing and Reasons Handed Down; Appeal Dismissed With Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; summons for leave to raise jurisdictional issue dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contractual Construction, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Estoppel, Waiver, Statutory Consent for Constituting Appellate Bench
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Land Law Equity Specific Performance Contractual Construction Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Estoppel +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Champion Concord Limited

1st Plaintiff; 1st Appellant

Craigside Investments Limited

2nd Plaintiff; 2nd Appellant

Lau Koon Foo

1st Defendant; Respondent

District Lands Officer, Sai Kung

2nd Defendant; Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Civil Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Hearing and Reasons Handed Down; Appeal Dismissed With Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was duly constituted under s.34B(4) of the High Court Ordinance when sitting with two judges absent a filed written consent
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement was automatically cancelled under clauses 13–17 at the Long Stop Date or whether clause 16 was triggered to extend completion
  3. 3 Whether parties' undertakings/consent given in court can be treated as constituting the required written consent and whether estoppel or waiver prevents later jurisdictional challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the parties gave undertakings in open court which, together with waiver and estoppel, cured the absence of a filed written consent so that the two‑judge Court of Appeal was duly constituted; on the merits the settlement agreement was unambiguous and clause 15 operated to automatically cancel the contract at the Long Stop Date because clause 16 was only triggered by a contested refusal communicated on or before that date, therefore the appeal failed and the lower courts' orders were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; summons for leave to raise jurisdictional issue dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgments of the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal affirmed