Read the full judgment text of HCCT 58/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 March 2020 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction contract dispute — Oral profit sharing agreement — Existence and terms of contract — Preliminary issues trial — Plaintiff alleged a profit sharing oral agreement from early 2009 with Defendant over fitting out projects including the One Central and Lane Crawford projects. The Court assessed evidence and found no concluded, binding agreement in the terms alleged, citing lack of essential terms such as duration, capital contribution and detailed cooperation. Contemporaneous documents and witness evidence contradicted Plaintiff’s claim, with invoices showing only management fees rather than profit sharing. Hearsay evidence from Plaintiff’s witnesses was given little weight. Consequently, the Plaintiff’s claim failed and the Defendant confirmed no counterclaim would be pursued. Costs were ordered against the Plaintiff. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and held that neither the OC nor the LC projects fell within any enforceable oral Agreement between the parties.
Legal issues: Existence of alleged oral Agreement
Outcome: No Agreement found as alleged; Plaintiff’s claims dismissed; Defendant will not pursue counterclaim
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case