AQUALITY (POOLS) LTD v. LI CHI YUNG SIMON

AQUALITY (POOLS) LTD v. LI CHI YUNG SIMON

The 18 September 1995 letter was admissible because it related to whether the parties had concluded a settlement; however, the Defendant had pleaded misrepresentation and a counterclaim raising triable issues about defects, delay and loss, so it was not appropriate to grant judgment on admission under O.27 r.3 and the application was refused.

Citation
AQUALITY (POOLS) LTD v. LI CHI YUNG SIMON
Parties
Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim): AQUALITY (POOLS) LIMITED; Defendant; Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): LI CHI YUNG SIMON also known as LI CHI YUNG also known as SIMON LI CHI YUNG; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim): ESTEEM DESIGN LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 May 1996
Case Number
HCA8041/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil — Contract/debt (construction Contract) / Hearing of Appeal From Master's Refusal of Judgment on Admission Under O.27 R.3; Determination of Admissibility of Without Prejudice Document and Merits of Application
Outcome
Document admitted; application for judgment on admission under O.27 r.3 refused.
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Judgment on Admission, Settlement Agreement, Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege Judgment on Admission Settlement Agreement Misrepresentation Summary Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AQUALITY (POOLS) LIMITED

Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim)

LI CHI YUNG SIMON also known as LI CHI YUNG also known as SIMON LI CHI YUNG

Defendant; Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

ESTEEM DESIGN LIMITED

2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil — Contract/debt (construction Contract) / Hearing of Appeal From Master's Refusal of Judgment on Admission Under O.27 R.3; Determination of Admissibility of Without Prejudice Document and Merits of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 18 September 1995 letter was admissible despite being part of settlement negotiations (without prejudice material)
  2. 2 Whether the letter constituted an admission sufficient to support judgment on admission under O.27 r.3
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentation and pleaded defects/counterclaim constitute a triable defence preventing summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The 18 September 1995 letter was admissible because it related to whether the parties had concluded a settlement; however, the Defendant had pleaded misrepresentation and a counterclaim raising triable issues about defects, delay and loss, so it was not appropriate to grant judgment on admission under O.27 r.3 and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Document admitted; application for judgment on admission under O.27 r.3 refused.

Orders

  • 18 September 1995 letter admitted into evidence
  • Application for judgment on admission pursuant to O.27 r.3 dismissed