Read the full judgment text of HCCT 38/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 November 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Sub-sub-contract — Letter of Assignment — Whether letter constitutes assignment — Contractual prohibition on assignment — Res judicata — New causes of action — Estoppel — Strike out — Amendment of pleadings. Brilliant sued Prosperity and sought claims against Interior based on a Letter purportedly assigning Prosperity's sub-sub-contract benefit. The High Court held the Letter created a sub-contract, not an assignment, supported by payment procedures and contract construction including clause 17 preventing assignment of the SSC. A prior ruling by Master Wong that the Letter was not an assignment was binding and precluded Brilliant's contrary contention. New causes of action alleging oral agreement and guarantee were estopped in relation to Sum B, previously litigated, but not precluded related to Sum A. Given imprecision of new allegations, amendment was refused without prejudice to submitting a properly particularised revised pleading. Parts of RASOC struck out and unless amended, Brilliant's claim against Interior will be dismissed with costs. Costs of the issue largely awarded to Interior.
Legal issues: Whether the Letter of Assignment constitutes a legal or equitable assignment · Effect of Assignment Restriction in the SSC · Res judicata effect of Master Wong's decision · Whether new causes of action alleging an oral agreement and guarantee can be raised
Outcome: Parts of RASOC are struck out; Brilliant's summons to amend RASOC dismissed without prejudice; unless Brilliant files fresh application to re-amend within specified days, Brilliant's action against Interior stands dismissed with costs to Interior.
Cites 1 case