TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHUN BIU AND ANOTHER

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHUN BIU AND ANOTHER

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to adequately plead or particularise an implied term, failed to identify any actionable misrepresentation or show causation, and could not rely on mere delay where the Agreement contained no contractual basis excusing completion; therefore their pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.

Citation
TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG CHUN BIU AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Tin Shui Wai Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Wong Chun Biu; 2nd Defendant: Ng Wai Hing, Annie
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 April 2008
Case Number
DCCJ1299/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (contract/property) / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 and Application for Final Judgment in District Court
Outcome
Defence and counterclaim struck out; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for damages to be assessed; costs ordered to the Plaintiff (order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days).
Legal Topics
Rescission, Misrepresentation, Completion of Sale, Forfeiture/determination of Agreement, Strike Out (no Reasonable Defence)
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Civil Procedure Rescission Misrepresentation Completion of Sale Forfeiture/determination of Agreement Strike Out (no Reasonable Defence)

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tin Shui Wai Development Limited

Plaintiff

Wong Chun Biu

1st Defendant

Ng Wai Hing, Annie

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (contract/property) / Strike Out Application Under Order 18 R.19 and Application for Final Judgment in District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed requiring the plaintiff to answer requisitions about completion by 31 December 1997
  2. 2 Whether defendants were entitled to rescind for alleged misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether delay in completion relieved defendants from contractual obligation to complete purchase

Ratio Decidendi

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to adequately plead or particularise an implied term, failed to identify any actionable misrepresentation or show causation, and could not rely on mere delay where the Agreement contained no contractual basis excusing completion; therefore their pleadings disclosed no reasonable defence and final judgment was entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Defence and counterclaim struck out; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for damages to be assessed; costs ordered to the Plaintiff (order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days).

Orders

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