Read the full judgment text of HCCT 72/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 November 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction law — agency — contractual relationships — doctrine of election — strike out — abuse of process The Plaintiff contracted exclusively with the 1st Defendant and obtained a judgment against the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant was alleged to be an agent for the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff then brought a claim against the 2nd Defendant based on an alleged contractual right which it did not have. The court considered whether the Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant was maintainable. It held that since the contract was only with the 1st Defendant, the claim against the 2nd Defendant was vexatious and an abuse of process. Further, applying Article 84 of Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, the Plaintiff's election to sue the 1st Defendant (agent) and having obtained judgment barred subsequent proceedings against the 2nd Defendant (principal). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant was struck out and dismissed. Costs were awarded to the 2nd Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal issues: Strike-out for lack of contractual right · Doctrine of election and bar to proceedings against principal
Outcome: Plaintiff's claim against the 2nd Defendant dismissed
Cited by 1 case