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

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil: Property Dispute; Specific Performance, Fraud, Conspiracy / Judgment Following Trial in the Court of First Instance (deputy High Court Judge S. Kwan)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether English Agreements were procured by fraudulent misrepresentations by Danny Cheung
2. 2 Whether managers could rely on non est factum to avoid the English Agreements
3. 3 Whether Comcewood proved the English Agreements were properly executed and deposits paid

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the Tso's principal witness unreliable and his evidence not sufficiently cogent to establish fraudulent misrepresentation or non est factum; Comcewood likewise failed to prove execution and payment of deposits on the balance of probabilities; accordingly none of the contending parties established liability and all claims and counterclaims between them were dismissed with reciprocal judgments entered where appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: judgment entered for Comcewood on the Tso's and the 1st–10th Plaintiffs' claims; Comcewood's counterclaim dismissed and judgment entered for the Tso and the 1st–10th Plaintiffs on that counterclaim; no order as to costs (each party to bear own costs) subject to order nisi.

Orders

• Judgment entered for Comcewood on the claim brought by the 11th Plaintiff (Tso) that the English Agreements were void for fraud: claim dismissed
• Judgment entered for Comcewood on the claims of the 1st–10th Plaintiffs for conspiracy and damages: claims dismissed