Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hedley byrne negligent misstatement

Legal area

Court

8 May 2008

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV165/2007

The Court held that the pleaded facts, taken at face value, disclosed viable causes of action: the pleadings sufficiently alleged fraudulent, reckless or negligent misrepresentations and promises within s8(2)(a)/(b) of the Protection of Investors Ordinance and, in respect of certain defendants, negligent acts (extended Hedley Byrne) and breach of trust in relation to improper transfer/distribution of plaintiffs' funds; accordingly the judge's orders permitting amendments and the continuation of claims against the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (under s8 and professional negligence), 5th and 7th defendants (re…
8 May 2008

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2007

Pleadings as framed disclosed reasonable causes of action: claims under s.8(2)(a)(iii) and (b)(iii) of the Protection of Investors Ordinance were adequately pleaded against the first and second defendants; the third defendant was properly pleaded as liable for negligence, Ordinance liability and breach of trust given his central role in correspondence and fund distribution; the fourth defendant could incur s.8 liability as a director of the first defendant; the appeal was allowed insofar as the action against the fifth and seventh defendants was restored for claims under the Ordinance and for…
8 May 2008

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2007

The Court held that the pleadings, read as a whole, disclosed reasonable causes of action: claims under s8 of the Protection of Investors Ordinance and for negligent misstatement/professional negligence were sufficiently pleaded against the relevant defendants (notably 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th); the 5th defendant's action was improperly struck out below and was restored to proceed on grounds of s8 and breach of trust; strike out was inappropriate given the pleaded facts and the stage of proceedings.

Hong Kong Case Law

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS