Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Completion of development

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN SAP AND OTHERS

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN SAP AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2961/2004

The Defence and Counterclaim were struck out because the pleaded allegations were bare assertions lacking factual particulars, the defendants failed to rescind pursuant to the contractual clause and were therefore deemed to have elected to wait for completion, and the misrepresentation allegations were unsupported and untimely; accordingly there was no reasonable defence and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.
8 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG CHING SUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG CHING SUN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ660/2004

The defence and counterclaim were struck out because the defendants failed to plead facts establishing an implied term or to identify any actionable misrepresentation or lawful excuse for non‑completion; accordingly the Plaintiff validly exercised contractual rights to determine the Agreement and is entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed.
20 Sept 2006

SUEN CHUEN LAI AND OTHERS v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

SUEN CHUEN LAI AND OTHERS v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3061/2005

The court granted a narrowly tailored order for discovery because documents relating to the refusal and reasons for withholding the Certificate of Compliance by the Lands Department between 26 January 2004 and 29 July 2004 are directly relevant and necessary to fairly dispose of the action; broader, imprecise categories were refused as fishing and unnecessary; the 2nd summons was dismissed.
4 Jul 2006

LOO WAI LING MUSETTA v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOO WAI LING MUSETTA v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4602/2003

The court refused the solicitor defendants' application for a separate preliminary trial of the completion/rescission issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 and refused applications to stay the other related actions because the factual and evidentiary interdependence of issues, likely discovery and witness evidence, the risk of unfairness and increased costs made a split trial and blanket stay neither just nor convenient.
4 Jul 2006

CHAN TUNG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN TUNG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4733/2003

Applications for separate trial of the preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and 4737 were refused and applications for stays in the related actions were dismissed because a split trial would not be just and convenient: it would cause delay, increased costs, likely appeals, risk loss of evidence and witness availability, and would not serve justice; therefore the normal rule of trying all issues together was upheld.
4 Jul 2006

LEE KOON KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE KOON KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4686/2003

The court refused applications for a separate preliminary issue trial and declined to stay the related proceedings because the issues to be determined were factual and interconnected with the negligence claims, the proposed split trial would not be just and convenient, would cause delay, costs escalation and risk prejudice to a fair trial; accordingly all issues should proceed together and directions, including costs, are to be dealt with at an adjourned directions hearing.
4 Jul 2006

YEE YICK HONG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEE YICK HONG v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4669/2003

The court refused the solicitor defendants' applications for trial of a preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 and dismissed their applications for stays in the related actions because it was not just and convenient to order a split trial: overlapping factual issues (state of completion and alleged negligent advice), likely need for discovery and common witnesses, risk of delay, escalation of costs and prejudice to plaintiffs outweighed the benefits of an early determination of the narrow issue; directions hearing was adjourned and costs to be addressed there; earlier strike-out of plaint…
4 Jul 2006

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAN MOON TONG DANNY AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAN MOON TONG DANNY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA732/2004

The court refused the applications for a preliminary issue trial and to stay related proceedings because the issues were intertwined with factual disputes requiring discovery and full trial, a split trial would not be sufficiently convenient or just, would increase delay and costs, risk undermining a fair trial and impose undue stress on litigants; accordingly the applications were dismissed and directions hearing adjourned, with costs to be determined at the directions hearing.
4 Jul 2006

KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4655/2003

The court refused the solicitors' applications for a separate preliminary trial and refused stays because splitting the trial was not just and convenient: it would cause delay, increased costs, risk prejudice to fair trial (faded memories, lost witnesses), duplicative appeals and stress to parties. The court allowed the developer's strike-out application against the purchasers (pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action) and directed a further directions hearing and costs to be dealt with at that hearing.
4 Jul 2006

LAI YORK SHING AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI YORK SHING AND ANOTHER v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4600/2003

The court refused the solicitor defendants' applications for a preliminary issue and refused the applications for stays because splitting the trial would cause unacceptable delay, escalate costs, multiply appeals and increase the risk that a fair trial would become impracticable (fading memories, witness availability), while producing little practical benefit; accordingly the issues must be tried together and the stay applications dismissed.