Read the full judgment text of HCA 002198/1985 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 December 1986 before Master Perrior.
Contract – sale of flats – assessment of damages – shortfall in saleable area – whether construction costs of flower beds should be credited – Contract – interpretation of Sale and Purchase Agreement – whether Clause 21(i) applies where there is no alteration to plans – Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – prayer for interest – Registrar's power under s.48 Supreme Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 – Contract law – measure of damages for misdescription of quantity – application of Hill v. Buckley (1811) 17 Ves. 394. The plaintiffs, purchasers of flats in Smith Court developed by the defendant, claimed damages for breach of contract because the actual saleable area of each flat was 31.02 square meters, less than the 32.97 square meters stated in the Sale and Purchase Agreements, the difference comprising a flower bed. A Deputy Judge found for the plaintiffs and ordered damages to be assessed. The sole issue at the assessment was whether the construction costs of the flower beds should be credited against the rateable reduction in purchase price. The court held that they should not, following the principle in Hill v. Buckley that a purchaser is entitled to an abatement from the purchase money for any shortfall in the quantity represented, and finding that Clause 21(i) of the Agreement did not apply as it was concerned with alterations to plans, of which there were none. The court interpreted the Agreement as intending the flower beds to be included in the property conveyed but excluded from the saleable area, so a rateable reduction did not give the plaintiffs a windfall. Damages were assessed for each plaintiff based on the agreed shortfall of 5.91446%. On the question of interest, the court declined to amend the Statement of Claim to add a prayer for interest, as the Registrar's power under s.48(3)(c) of the Supreme Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 was limited and the omission could only have been remedied by a Judge under s.48(3)(b). Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs with a certificate for counsel.
Legal issues: Whether construction costs of flower beds should be credited in assessing damages for shortfall in saleable area · Whether the Registrar can amend the Statement of Claim to include a prayer for interest after judgment
Outcome: Damages assessed for each plaintiff on a rateable basis reflecting the 5.91446% shortfall in saleable area; application to amend Statement of Claim to add prayer for interest refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs with certificate for counsel.