WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Read properly the pleaded allegations concerning failure to negotiate an overall plot ratio and failure to apply for exemptions disclose a reasonable cause of action and are not properly the subject of strike-out under O.18 r.19; accordingly the strike-out application is dismissed, although the pleading is ambiguous and voluntary amendments as offered by the plaintiffs are appropriate and would in any event likely have been ordered; costs are apportioned accordingly.

Citation
WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wharf Properties Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: The Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Eric Cumine Associates, Architects, Engineers & Surveyors (a firm); 2nd Defendant: J. Roger Preston & Partners (a firm); 3rd Defendant: Shing Yip Engineering Company (a firm); 4th Defendant: John Lok & Partners Limited; 5th Defendant: Intrusion-Prepakt (Far East) Limited; 6th Defendant: The General Electric Company of Hong Kong Limited; 7th Defendant: V.S.L. Engineers (Hong Kong) Limited; 8th Defendant: The Jardine Engineering Corporation Limited; 9th Defendant: American Engineering Corporation (H.K.) Limited; 10th Defendant: Gilman and Company Limited; 11th Defendant: Arnhold & Company Limited; 12th Defendant: Empire Engineering Company Limited; 13th Defendant: Reliance Engineering and Trading Company Limited; 14th Defendant: Plasteel Hong Kong Limited; 15th Defendant: Shun Hing Electrical Works and Engineering Company Limited; 16th Defendant: Mansion Company (a firm); 17th Defendant: Fortress Limited; 18th Defendant: Johnson Controls (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 1984
Case Number
HCA13431/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Construction Dispute Concerning Plot Ratio and Development / Interlocutory: Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Heard in Chambers; Ruling Delivered
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; plaintiffs to file volunteered amendments to Statement of Claim; costs ordered as set out
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Loss of Chance, Plot Ratio, Building Regulations, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Construction Law Property / Planning Law Strike Out Amendment of Pleadings Loss of Chance Plot Ratio +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wharf Properties Limited

1st Plaintiff

The Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Eric Cumine Associates, Architects, Engineers & Surveyors (a firm)

1st Defendant

J. Roger Preston & Partners (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Shing Yip Engineering Company (a firm)

3rd Defendant

John Lok & Partners Limited

4th Defendant

Intrusion-Prepakt (Far East) Limited

5th Defendant

The General Electric Company of Hong Kong Limited

6th Defendant

V.S.L. Engineers (Hong Kong) Limited

7th Defendant

The Jardine Engineering Corporation Limited

8th Defendant

American Engineering Corporation (H.K.) Limited

9th Defendant

Gilman and Company Limited

10th Defendant

Arnhold & Company Limited

11th Defendant

Empire Engineering Company Limited

12th Defendant

Reliance Engineering and Trading Company Limited

13th Defendant

Plasteel Hong Kong Limited

14th Defendant

Shun Hing Electrical Works and Engineering Company Limited

15th Defendant

Mansion Company (a firm)

16th Defendant

Fortress Limited

17th Defendant

Johnson Controls (Hong Kong) Limited

18th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Construction Dispute Concerning Plot Ratio and Development / Interlocutory: Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 Heard in Chambers; Ruling Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Statement of Claim alleging failure to secure maximum plot ratio and failure to apply for exemptions disclose a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded allegation that unused plot ratio from Ocean Terminal could be carried over to Harbour City is sustainable in law
  3. 3 Whether alleged failure to apply for exemptions gives rise to only speculative loss or to an actionable loss of chance

Ratio Decidendi

Read properly the pleaded allegations concerning failure to negotiate an overall plot ratio and failure to apply for exemptions disclose a reasonable cause of action and are not properly the subject of strike-out under O.18 r.19; accordingly the strike-out application is dismissed, although the pleading is ambiguous and voluntary amendments as offered by the plaintiffs are appropriate and would in any event likely have been ordered; costs are apportioned accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; plaintiffs to file volunteered amendments to Statement of Claim; costs ordered as set out

Orders

  • No part of the Statement of Claim struck out under Order 18 r.19.
  • Plaintiffs to file and serve the amendments to the Statement of Claim as volunteered during the hearing.