VOLLY BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. JOINLAND HOLDINGS LTD

VOLLY BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. JOINLAND HOLDINGS LTD

Resale dates in March 2010 represent the proper valuation dates because the resale prices reflected the market value and the vendor did not fail to mitigate; accordingly damages are assessed by reference to the resale prices, Volly Best is entitled to consequential losses for management fees and government rent/rates (Items b and c) but not to agency commission and conveyancing costs (Items d and e) absent proof they were additional, interest at prime plus 1% from date of resale to judgment is awarded, and plaintiff is entitled to three quarters of costs.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1191
Parties
Plaintiff (vendor): Volly Best Investment Limited (獲佳投資有限公司); Defendant (purchaser): Joinland Holdings Limited (信仁集團有限公司)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2018
Case Number
HCA1438/2013
Procedural Posture
Contract for Sale of Land Vendor's Claim for Damages / Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Court adopts resale dates (March 2010) as valuation dates; damages to be quantified by reference to resale prices; consequential losses limited to management fees and government rent/rates; agency commission and conveyancing costs disallowed for lack of proof; interest and costs awarded as set out below.
Legal Topics
Valuation Date, Mitigation of Loss, Consequential Damages, Interest, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Damages Civil Procedure Valuation Date Mitigation of Loss Consequential Damages Interest +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Volly Best Investment Limited (獲佳投資有限公司)

Plaintiff (vendor)

Joinland Holdings Limited (信仁集團有限公司)

Defendant (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Contract for Sale of Land Vendor's Claim for Damages / Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate date for assessing open market value (date of determination 25 Aug 2009 v resale dates Mar 2010)
  2. 2 Whether resale prices reflect market value and can be used for damages
  3. 3 Whether vendor owed and breached duty to mitigate and effect on measure of damages

Ratio Decidendi

Resale dates in March 2010 represent the proper valuation dates because the resale prices reflected the market value and the vendor did not fail to mitigate; accordingly damages are assessed by reference to the resale prices, Volly Best is entitled to consequential losses for management fees and government rent/rates (Items b and c) but not to agency commission and conveyancing costs (Items d and e) absent proof they were additional, interest at prime plus 1% from date of resale to judgment is awarded, and plaintiff is entitled to three quarters of costs.

Court Disposition

Court adopts resale dates (March 2010) as valuation dates; damages to be quantified by reference to resale prices; consequential losses limited to management fees and government rent/rates; agency commission and conveyancing costs disallowed for lack of proof; interest and costs awarded as set out below.

Orders

  • Resale prices in March 2010 to be adopted as market values for assessment of damages for each property
  • Volly Best's claim for consequential losses allowed for Item (b) management fees and Item (c) government rent and rates up to completion of resale; Items (d) agency commission and (e) conveyancing costs dismissed for lack of evidence they were additional expenses