TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HEUNG KING CHAN AND ANOTHER

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HEUNG KING CHAN AND ANOTHER

Defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to plead or particularize any basis for an implied term, produced no contractual provision excusing completion due to delay, and thus disclosed no reasonable defence; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment with damages to be assessed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HEUNG KING CHAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Tin Shui Wai Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Heung King Chan; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Yee Ping
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 April 2008
Case Number
DCCJ650/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Sale of Property / Contract / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Defence and counterclaim struck out; judgment entered for the Plaintiff; damages to be assessed; costs ordered nisi to be made absolute in 14 days
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Rescission, Strike Out Under Procedural Rule, Completion of Contract, Remedies (damages), Costs
Source Language
en
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Rescission Strike Out Under Procedural Rule Completion of Contract Remedies (damages) +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tin Shui Wai Development Limited

Plaintiff

Heung King Chan

1st Defendant

Cheung Yee Ping

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Sale of Property / Contract / Application to Strike Out Defence and Counterclaim; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed obliging the plaintiff to answer requisitions about completion by 31 Dec 1997
  2. 2 Whether delay in completing the development excused the defendants from completing the purchase
  3. 3 Whether defendants disclosed a reasonable defence to avoid strike out

Ratio Decidendi

Defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to plead or particularize any basis for an implied term, produced no contractual provision excusing completion due to delay, and thus disclosed no reasonable defence; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment with damages to be assessed and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Defence struck out
  • Counterclaim struck out