21 Feb 2000
ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACV13/1999
The consent order of 28 May 1997 must be construed objectively and, as construed, the parties contemplated resolution of control of Unionix and performance under the contractual option such that Prince Good and Unionix effectively accepted a delay pending resolution; consequently Roe was not liable for damages for the delay and the Court of Appeal's orders reversing Yam J were quashed; procedural irregularity in Roe's originating summons did not determine the substantive outcome when the consent order governed parties' rights and obligations.