10 Jun 2003
The court found the Plaintiff was the true lender, Mr Yau had no authority to bind her, no binding settlement was concluded on 25 September 2000 (and any purported agreement would be void for uncertainty and lack of consideration); accordingly the 2nd Defendant's application to stay proceedings was dismissed.
3 Feb 2000
The defence of non est factum failed because the 3rd defendant was aware of the general effect of the documents, the guarantees and amounts were clear on their face, she had capacity and opportunity to understand and did not take the exceptional precautions required to establish non est factum; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff was proper.
28 Jan 2000
Summary judgment was set aside because the written guarantee and alleged oral assurances were too ambiguous about who was primarily liable, what property was charged and the extent of liability, creating arguable issues sufficient to preclude summary judgment and to justify unconditional leave to defend for the 2nd defendant.
28 Jan 2000
Summary judgment was refused because there were serious triable issues of fact and law — notably whether the advances were loans or capital contributions and whether a collateral contemporaneous agreement required unanimous shareholder consent to repayment — rendering Order 14 inappropriate.
21 Jan 1982
Clause 27 embodied a fundamental uncertainty of concept (it omitted the essential quantity of gold or the mechanism to determine how much gold governed the rent), making it impossible to give the clause meaning; therefore clause 27 is void for uncertainty and must be ignored, leaving the rents for extended periods as specified in clause 28.
5 Oct 1981
Although the parties intended the Confirmation of Instruction to be binding, the agreement lacked agreement on essential terms — notably a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant between vendor and sub-purchasers and an ascertainable method for calculating gross area (and thus price). Those matters remained subject to further negotiation and rendered the purported contract unenforceable for uncertainty; specific performance was refused and registration vacated.
11 Dec 1969
The scheme (Exhibit A8) was a domestic, tentative and uncertain arrangement not intended to create legal relations or a partnership; therefore it was not a binding contract or partnership; plaintiffs remained sole managers and controllers of the school and were entitled to an account and judgment for monies due ($3,573.35); counterclaim dismissed; interlocutory injunctions to remain in force.