3 Mar 2023
On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant's agent did not make the alleged oral representations and the plaintiff did not rely on them; plaintiff's witnesses were not credible and corrective information was available (sales brochure and WKLL meeting), therefore the counterclaim for misrepresentation failed.
24 Nov 2017
The trial judge's finding that the defendants did not make the alleged representation was supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; therefore plaintiffs failed to prove negligent misstatement and the appeal must be dismissed.
18 Nov 2016
The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in fact by misapprehending when the vendor's representative learned the purchaser's identity; on correct assessment the defendants did act in reliance on the agent's misrepresentation and rescinded the agreements, so the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the liquidated damages claims and the defendants' counterclaims succeeded; the appeal was allowed, the lower judgment set aside and judgment entered for the defendants on their counterclaims for HKD 150,000 each with interest and costs.
22 Sept 2016
Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either Mr Lee or Mr Lo made the pleaded representation that the defendant had agreed to advance HK$200,000,000; alternatively, even if considered, plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary relationship/proximity to impose a duty of care and their reliance was unreasonable; accordingly the claims are dismissed.
25 Jun 2015
Defendants discovered the purchaser's identity and voluntarily elected to proceed with the transactions on the plaintiff's services, and Ms Chan acted as their agent whose knowledge is imputable to them; therefore the plaintiff was entitled to commissions and costs, and the defendants' grounds for leave to appeal lacked real prospects of success.
25 Jun 2015
The court found that the defendants (through their agent Ms Chan) knew the purchaser's identity when the agreements were signed and elected to proceed, so they were not affected by the plaintiff's misrepresentation and remained liable to pay the commissions; consequently the costs order nisi stands and leave to appeal is refused.
30 Apr 2013
On the balance of probabilities plaintiff failed to prove the cause of the USB failures or that any representation was false and relied upon; the court rejected the plaintiff's technical reports as unreliable and found pre-contract examination/testing by CPL and plaintiff's own expertise meant exceptions in s.16(2)(b) and s.16(3) SOGO applied; therefore no liability for breach of implied terms or misrepresentation and claim dismissed.
23 Jan 2013
The court found that the defendant made the representation that there was "no problem" regarding the garden/structures, that this representation was false, and that it was made knowingly or at least recklessly with the intention of inducing the plaintiff; the plaintiff relied on that representation and was induced to pay an inflated price, entitling her to damages equal to the loss caused (price difference plus stamp duty and interest).
15 Sept 2011
The court found that the defendant negligently misrepresented the vehicle's mileage, the plaintiff relied on that representation, and clause 19 did not effectively exclude liability or negate reliance; accordingly rescission was ordered and the defendant was required to indemnify the plaintiff for expenses necessarily incurred under the agreement; claims on merchantable quality and fraudulent misrepresentation were not made out.
9 Nov 2010
No general duty of care was established that would require the estate agent to confirm absence of unauthorised structures; furthermore the lease plan and as-is clauses showed the floor extension was not part of the leased premises and the plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance or a compensable misrepresentation, therefore the claim fails.