TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG CHING SUN AND ANOTHER

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG CHING SUN AND ANOTHER

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to plead facts establishing an implied term or to identify any actionable misrepresentation or lawful excuse for non‑completion; accordingly the Plaintiff validly exercised contractual rights to determine the Agreement and is entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed.

Citation
TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG CHING SUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: AU-YEUNG CHING SUN; 2nd Defendant: WANG MAN WAH, CONNIE
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 April 2008
Case Number
DCCJ660/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Contract for Sale of Property / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim; Judgment Delivering Strike Out and Entry of Judgment for Plaintiff
Outcome
Defence and counterclaim struck out; judgment entered for Plaintiff for damages to be assessed; costs ordered nisi to Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Completion of Development, Rescission, Implied Terms, Misrepresentation, Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19, Forfeiture/determination of Contract, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Completion of Development Rescission Implied Terms Misrepresentation Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19 +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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

AU-YEUNG CHING SUN

1st Defendant

WANG MAN WAH, CONNIE

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Contract for Sale of Property / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim; Judgment Delivering Strike Out and Entry of Judgment for Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed requiring the vendor to answer requisitions about completion by 31 December 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were entitled to rescind for alleged misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether delay in completing the development absolved the defendants from completing purchase

Ratio Decidendi

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to plead facts establishing an implied term or to identify any actionable misrepresentation or lawful excuse for non‑completion; accordingly the Plaintiff validly exercised contractual rights to determine the Agreement and is entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Defence and counterclaim struck out; judgment entered for Plaintiff for damages to be assessed; costs ordered nisi to Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defence and counterclaim struck out
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for damages to be assessed