22 Aug 2022
The omission of the operative clause in the Assignment was a common mistake by the parties' solicitors and, on the established equitable test, the Assignment must be rectified by declaration to include the operative clause; the court will not compel the innocent defendant to execute a confirmatory deed and s.38A is not engaged absent a prior order against the defendant.
2 Sept 2015
The Deed of Gift was rectified because the completed instrument, read with its recitals and clauses, demonstrated a clear and manifested intention to create a joint tenancy between the Donor and the Donee; the omission and superfluous wording were clerical mistakes repugnant to that intention and warranted equitable rectification, which takes effect from the date of execution.
18 Jul 2005
The court held that the dominant wording 'all of the contractual and corporate joint ventures' evinced an intention to include all existing joint ventures and that the reference to Schedule 3 was a falsa demonstratio; accordingly the TKCJV was a Joint Venture and the Ting Kau Bridge Contract fell within the Zero Margin Contracts clause of the Acquisition Agreement, the alleged oral settlement was not a binding discharge, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs.
13 Jan 2005
The Court found the Deed ambiguous, admitted oral evidence, preferred and accepted the Plaintiff's credible evidence that the $800,000 settlement was intended to cover all items in the statement of account including the Defendant's interest in HS881, and therefore the Deed was rectified to record that liability; the counterclaim was dismissed and judgment entered for the Plaintiff for the outstanding $500,000 with interest and costs, the District Court having jurisdiction under s.37.2(i) of the District Court Ordinance.
15 May 2001
The ex parte Mareva injunction obtained originally was discharged because there was material non-disclosure of clause 5.1 and related correspondence; however the non-disclosure was innocent and the plaintiff nevertheless established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation, so in the exercise of the court's discretion a fresh Mareva injunction should be granted pending resolution of the substantive issues including the proper construction of clause 5.1 and the rectification claim.