THOMAS BOVET v. SELPRO TACTICAL LTD AND ANOTHER

THOMAS BOVET v. SELPRO TACTICAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the representations were made and that the plaintiff was induced, but there was insufficient evidence that the representations were untrue or that the director had assumed personal responsibility; because the communications were made in the capacity of Selpro's director/agent and no unequivocal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THOMAS BOVET v. SELPRO TACTICAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Bovet; 1st Defendant: Selpro Tactical Limited; 2nd Defendant: Vincent Leslie Pinto
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2009
Case Number
DCCJ3477/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (misrepresentation/contract/company Law) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Claim against 2nd Defendant (Vincent Leslie Pinto) dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misstatement, Assumption of Responsibility, Limited Liability, Post Dated Cheque as Security
Source Language
en
Misrepresentation Contract Law Company Law Agency Law Directors' Liability Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misstatement Assumption of Responsibility +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Bovet

Plaintiff

Selpro Tactical Limited

1st Defendant

Vincent Leslie Pinto

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (misrepresentation/contract/company Law) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the representations were made by the 2nd defendant
  2. 2 What the representations meant (scope and whether they amounted to a personal guarantee)
  3. 3 Whether the representations were untrue and whether the 2nd defendant knew or was reckless

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the representations were made and that the plaintiff was induced, but there was insufficient evidence that the representations were untrue or that the director had assumed personal responsibility; because the communications were made in the capacity of Selpro's director/agent and no unequivocal assumption of personal liability was proved, the claim against Mr Pinto was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against 2nd Defendant (Vincent Leslie Pinto) dismissed

Orders

  • Action against 2nd Defendant dismissed
  • Costs awarded to 2nd Defendant to be paid by Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed