Kensland Realty Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. Tai Tang and Chong
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 18/2007 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 20 April 2007 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
1. We grant leave to appeal on the question whether the plaintiff’s action is statute–barred by virtue of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347, and in particular, on the question regarding the requirements to be satisfied for establishing whether and if so, when, the plaintiff had knowledge that it had suffered loss, and that such loss was attributable in whole or in part to the acts or omissions alleged to constitute negligence on the part of the defendants for the purposes of section 31 of the Or
Legal issues: Limitation period and knowledge under s.31 Limitation Ordinance
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted on the question of limitation and knowledge under s.31 of the Limitation Ordinance.
Cited by 46 cases
|
FAMV No. 18 of 2007 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 18 OF 2007 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 44 OF 2006) _____________________ Between:
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 20 April 2007 Date of Determination: 20 April 2007 ______________________ D E T E R M I N A T I O N ______________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : 1.We grant leave to appeal on the question whether the plaintiff’s action is statute–barred by virtue of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347, and in particular, on the question regarding the requirements to be satisfied for establishing whether and if so, when, the plaintiff had knowledge that it had suffered loss, and that such loss was attributable in whole or in part to the acts or omissions alleged to constitute negligence on the part of the defendants for the purposes of section 31 of the Ordinance, in circumstances where the negligence is alleged to consist of negligent advice in a conveyancing. transaction which subsequently led, by a judicial process culminating in an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, to a determination of liability on the plaintiff’s part in respect of that transaction. 2.Although the context is a striking out, the parties should, by their printed cases and oral arguments, assist the Court in arriving at a final determination of the relevant questions of law rather than a view merely as to whether or not they are reasonably arguable.
Mr John Scott SC (instructed by Messrs Jonathan Rostron) for the applicant Mr Charles Sussex SC (instructed by Messrs Richards Butler) for the respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case