Read the full judgment text of CACV 167/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 December 2006 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Barma J.
Civil Appeal — Contract and Agency — Undisclosed Principal — Management Agreement — Clause 12 limiting authority — Quantum Meruit — Unjust Enrichment — Chain Sub-contractors — Insolvency — The first defendant entered a contract with the Housing Authority but appointed the second defendant as Manager under a Management Agreement containing strict provisions requiring written consent for subcontracting. The plaintiff contracted with the second defendant for works on the project. The plaintiff claimed against the first defendant as undisclosed principal and on quantum meruit grounds. The Court of Appeal held the Management Agreement did not constitute an agency relationship enabling the second defendant to contract on behalf of the first defendant. Clause 12 specifically required prior permission for sub-contracts, which was not sought or granted, denying authority to bind first defendant. Reliance on Watteau v Fenwick was rejected. Regarding quantum meruit, the Court found that the first defendant had paid or assumed obligations to the second defendant and Petway Ltd, and the contractual relationships between plaintiff and those entities stood; no misrepresentation causing unjust enrichment was proven. As such, the first defendant was not liable on quantum meruit grounds. The appeal was dismissed with costs ordered in favour of the first defendant.
Legal issues: Whether the Management Agreement constituted an agency relationship · Claim for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment against first defendant
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; judgment of Reyes J upheld
Cited by 1 case