HEUNG KAM FAI AND OTHERS v. HUGEWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or non est factum because the principal witness evidence was unreliable and not cogent; Comcewood also failed to prove proper execution of the English Agreements or payment of deposits on the balance of probabilities; therefore all claims and counterclaims relating to the English Agreements and alleged conspiracy were dismissed.

Citation: HEUNG KAM FAI AND OTHERS v. HUGEWIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties: 1st Plaintiff: Heung Kam Fai; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheng Cheung Sing; 3rd Plaintiff: Ting Lai Ping Bonny; 4th Plaintiff: Heung Moon Chiu; 5th Plaintiff: Kwok Kai Kam; 6th Plaintiff: Ting Lai Ming; 7th Plaintiff: Yue Ping Man; 8th Plaintiff: Lam Yee Lai; 9th Plaintiff: Wong Fuk Ming; 10th Plaintiff: Ho Kim Ning Agatha; 11th Plaintiff: U Fook Shing Tso by its Managers (Yu Cho Sing, Yu Kwai, Yu Koon Kau); 1st Defendant: Hugewin Development Limited; 2nd Defendant: Simstar Development Limited trading under the name of Chungs Construction Company; 3rd Defendant: Paul Chan & Co. (a firm); 4th Defendant: Cheung Kai Yin Danny; 5th Defendant: Comcewood Development Limited; 6th Defendant: Or Ching Ho
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 26 June 2000
Case Number: HCA3814/1989
Procedural Posture: Civil Action Land Sale/purchase; Fraud; Conspiracy; Specific Performance; Rescission / Consolidated Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome: All claims and counterclaims dismissed on evidential grounds; judgment entered accordingly; order nisi that there be no order as to costs
Legal Topics: Specific Performance, Misrepresentation, Non Est Factum, Rescission, Registration of Instrument, Damages for Conspiracy, Vacation of Registration
Source Language: EN

Contract Equity Property/land Law Tort Conspiracy Fraud Specific Performance Misrepresentation Non Est Factum +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Heung Kam Fai

1st Plaintiff

Cheng Cheung Sing

2nd Plaintiff

Ting Lai Ping Bonny

3rd Plaintiff

Heung Moon Chiu

4th Plaintiff

Kwok Kai Kam

5th Plaintiff

Ting Lai Ming

6th Plaintiff

Yue Ping Man

7th Plaintiff

Lam Yee Lai

8th Plaintiff

Wong Fuk Ming

9th Plaintiff

Ho Kim Ning Agatha

10th Plaintiff

U Fook Shing Tso by its Managers (Yu Cho Sing, Yu Kwai, Yu Koon Kau)

11th Plaintiff

Hugewin Development Limited

1st Defendant

Simstar Development Limited trading under the name of Chungs Construction Company

2nd Defendant

Paul Chan & Co. (a firm)

3rd Defendant

Cheung Kai Yin Danny

4th Defendant

Comcewood Development Limited

5th Defendant

Or Ching Ho

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Land Sale/purchase; Fraud; Conspiracy; Specific Performance; Rescission / Consolidated Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

1 Were the English Agreements procured by fraudulent misrepresentations by Danny Cheung?
2 Could the managers rely on non est factum for execution of the English Agreements?
3 Were the English Agreements properly executed and were deposits actually paid to the managers?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

All claims and counterclaims dismissed on evidential grounds; judgment entered accordingly; order nisi that there be no order as to costs

Orders

Dismissal of the 11th Plaintiff's (Tso) claim against Comcewood; judgment for Comcewood on that claim
Dismissal of the 1st–10th Plaintiffs' claims against Comcewood; judgment for Comcewood on those claims