MONTRIO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PING SHUN DAVID

MONTRIO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PING SHUN DAVID

The court found as a matter of fact that Ms Lam and her employers were not acting as agents for the plaintiffs when the leaflets were sent or any alleged oral comment made; the leaflets were marketing material containing an explicit disclaimer and the statement of gross area was not an actionable representation of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MONTRIO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PING SHUN DAVID
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Montrio Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Standard Jackson Development Limited; Defendant: Tse Ping Shun David
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Case Number
HCA757/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Sale of Property; Misrepresentation and Forfeiture of Deposit / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Agency, Representations in Marketing Leaflets, Reliance and Reasonableness, Forfeiture of Deposit, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
en
Contract Tort (misrepresentation) Property Agency Misrepresentation Rescission Representations in Marketing Leaflets Reliance and Reasonableness +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montrio Limited

1st Plaintiff

Standard Jackson Development Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Tse Ping Shun David

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Sale of Property; Misrepresentation and Forfeiture of Deposit / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the statement in the 2008 Centaline leaflet and the Ricacorp leaflet made on behalf of the plaintiffs?
  2. 2 If yes, did the statement constitute an actionable representation?
  3. 3 Did Ms Lam make the oral representation to the defendant on 6 May 2008?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found as a matter of fact that Ms Lam and her employers were not acting as agents for the plaintiffs when the leaflets were sent or any alleged oral comment made; the leaflets were marketing material containing an explicit disclaimer and the statement of gross area was not an actionable representation of fact; the defendant did not prove reliance or entitlement to rescission; therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to forfeit the deposits and the 1st plaintiff was awarded damages for the resale shortfall; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to forfeit the deposits of HK$1,900,000 and HK$1,200,000 respectively
  • Monetary judgment for the 1st plaintiff in the sum of HK$3,800,450 with interest at the judgment rate from the date of writ until payment