WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

On the pleadings taken with the available evidence and construing disputed facts in favour of the plaintiffs for the striking out exercise, the court found the re-amended statements of claim disclosed arguable causes of action for money had and received for total failure of consideration, wrongful conversion/misappropriation, and a trust-like obligation (Quistclose/resulting/constructive) against the 2nd defendant; the Amended Summonses therefore failed and were dismissed.

Citation
WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: William Thomson; Plaintiff: Hans-Juergen Boewe; 1st Defendant: Roland John Jeans; 2nd Defendant: Tanner De Witt (a firm)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Case Number
DCCJ3388/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action District Court / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out (amended Summonses)
Outcome
Amended Summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Failure of Consideration, Money Had and Received, Wrongful Conversion, Misappropriation, Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Quistclose Trust, Pleadings and Particulars, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Company Law Contract Law Strike Out Failure of Consideration Money Had and Received Wrongful Conversion +6 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomson

Plaintiff

Hans-Juergen Boewe

Plaintiff

Roland John Jeans

1st Defendant

Tanner De Witt (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action District Court / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out (amended Summonses)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the re-amended statements of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs established total failure of consideration entitling recovery of subscription monies
  3. 3 Whether wrongful conversion or misappropriation is sufficiently pleaded against the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings taken with the available evidence and construing disputed facts in favour of the plaintiffs for the striking out exercise, the court found the re-amended statements of claim disclosed arguable causes of action for money had and received for total failure of consideration, wrongful conversion/misappropriation, and a trust-like obligation (Quistclose/resulting/constructive) against the 2nd defendant; the Amended Summonses therefore failed and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Amended Summonses dismissed

Orders

  • Costs of and incidental to the Amended Summonses to the plaintiffs forthwith with a certificate for counsel