WAYNE THOMAS DAVIS v. ALISON SUZANNE POCKETT AND ANOTHER

WAYNE THOMAS DAVIS v. ALISON SUZANNE POCKETT AND ANOTHER

Because the 1st Defendant defaulted and did not plead limitation or advance evidence, the plaintiff's pleaded facts are accepted; quantum is assessed by reference to contemporaneous liquidator/receiver reports (5 cents in the dollar for the 1st Fund and negligible recovery for the 2nd Fund), resulting in judgment for the plaintiff for AU$257,346.65 and US$417,433.50, plus interest and costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3641
Parties
Plaintiff: Wayne Thomas Davis; 1st Defendant: Alison Suzanne Pockett; 2nd Defendant: Magellan Financial Planning Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Case Number
HCA1215/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence, Negligent and Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Trust / Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant for AU$257,346.65 and US$417,433.50, together with interest and costs
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Default Judgment Consequences, Limitation Period Pleas, Pre Judgment Interest, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Professional Negligence Misrepresentation Fiduciary Duty Trust Law Limitation Law Procedural Rules Remedies Damages and Interest Damages Assessment +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Thomas Davis

Plaintiff

Alison Suzanne Pockett

1st Defendant

Magellan Financial Planning Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence, Negligent and Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Trust / Assessment of Damages Following Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Quantum of damages after interlocutory judgment where defendant in default
  2. 2 Whether limitation should bar the claim given dates of transactions
  3. 3 Appropriate rate and period for pre-judgment interest

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 1st Defendant defaulted and did not plead limitation or advance evidence, the plaintiff's pleaded facts are accepted; quantum is assessed by reference to contemporaneous liquidator/receiver reports (5 cents in the dollar for the 1st Fund and negligible recovery for the 2nd Fund), resulting in judgment for the plaintiff for AU$257,346.65 and US$417,433.50, plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant for AU$257,346.65 and US$417,433.50, together with interest and costs

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant in the sums of AU$257,346.65 and US$417,433.50 (US$387,433.50 plus US$30,000)
  • Interest on those sums at 1% over the HSBC prime rate from the date of the Writ to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment in full