WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO

WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO

The court held as a matter of contractual construction that advancing the completion date did not vary the expressly agreed time provision and that completion on 21 May 2008 was to occur within the Business Hours (by 5:00 pm); however, summary judgment was refused because there remained a genuine factual dispute whether the Defendant's representative actually tendered completion before the deadline (the time chop showing 5:06 pm and the Defendant's assertion of timely arrival create a triable issue).

Citation
WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO
Parties
Plaintiff: Wu; Defendant: Chu; Vendor: Golden Rich Realty Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2009
Case Number
DCCJ2672/2008
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract / Summary Judgment Application (o.14 and O.14 A)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; unconditional leave to defend granted; action to proceed to trial
Legal Topics
Completion Deadline, Conveyancing, Damages, Forfeiture of Deposit, Contractual Interpretation, Midnight Rule, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Professional Negligence Property Law Completion Deadline Conveyancing Damages Forfeiture of Deposit +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wu

Plaintiff

Chu

Defendant

Golden Rich Realty Limited

Vendor

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence and Breach of Contract / Summary Judgment Application (o.14 and O.14 A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proper time for completion on the varied completion date (21 May 2008) was within Business Hours (9:30 am–5:00 pm) as defined in the original agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's representative failed to deliver the completion docket (and payment) by 5:00 pm on 21 May 2008
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant breached his contractual and tortious duties of care as conveyancing solicitor and caused the Plaintiff's pecuniary loss

Ratio Decidendi

The court held as a matter of contractual construction that advancing the completion date did not vary the expressly agreed time provision and that completion on 21 May 2008 was to occur within the Business Hours (by 5:00 pm); however, summary judgment was refused because there remained a genuine factual dispute whether the Defendant's representative actually tendered completion before the deadline (the time chop showing 5:06 pm and the Defendant's assertion of timely arrival create a triable issue).

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; unconditional leave to defend granted; action to proceed to trial

Orders

  • Unconditional leave to defend granted
  • Costs of and occasioned by this application to be in the cause with certificate for counsel