TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 was struck out because the Statement of Claim failed to plead facts establishing a duty owed by D1 to P1 in the KV Property transaction and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action. P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 was not struck out because, on the pleaded facts, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was barred by the no reflective loss principle and a trial could find P1 suffered the loss personally.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3825
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TAM YUK CHING (譚玉貞); 2nd Plaintiff: take point investment holdings limited (得邦投資控股有限公司); 3rd Plaintiff: blIssful voice limited; 1st Defendant: HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm); 2nd Defendant: WONG & POON SOLICITORS (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 December 2022
Case Number
HCA1511/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Professional Negligence/solicitors / Appeal From Master's Striking Out Order (rehearing in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed; P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 struck out; P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 not struck out; Master's order to strike out the entirety of P1's claim and Master's costs order set aside; order nisi for no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, No Reflective Loss Principle, Implied Retainer, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Company Law Equity and Trusts Property Law Strike Out No Reflective Loss Principle Implied Retainer +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAM YUK CHING (譚玉貞)

1st Plaintiff

take point investment holdings limited (得邦投資控股有限公司)

2nd Plaintiff

blIssful voice limited

3rd Plaintiff

HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm)

1st Defendant

WONG & POON SOLICITORS (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Professional Negligence/solicitors / Appeal From Master's Striking Out Order (rehearing in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 discloses a reasonable cause of action against D1
  2. 2 Whether P1's claim is frivolous or vexatious
  3. 3 Whether the no reflective loss principle bars P1's claim for HK$5,508,000

Ratio Decidendi

P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 was struck out because the Statement of Claim failed to plead facts establishing a duty owed by D1 to P1 in the KV Property transaction and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action. P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 was not struck out because, on the pleaded facts, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was barred by the no reflective loss principle and a trial could find P1 suffered the loss personally.

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed; P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 struck out; P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 not struck out; Master's order to strike out the entirety of P1's claim and Master's costs order set aside; order nisi for no order as to costs.

Orders

  • P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 against D1 struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  • P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 against D1 not struck out