Read the full judgment text of CACV 000183/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 March 1991 before Fuad VP, Power JA, Penlington JA.
Civil procedure – pleadings – amendment – acceptance of repudiation – whether acceptance of repudiation must be specifically pleaded – whether amendment as formulated is useless – Court of Appeal – tenancy agreement – specific performance abandoned in favour of damages for repudiation – plaintiff remained in possession for about 15 months after notice to quit – two-year lease granted by Overseas Trust Bank from 16 September 1986 to 15 September 1988 – reversion assigned to Hong Kong Chinese Bank Ltd which in May 1988 agreed by letters to grant new tenancy from 15 September 1988 to 30 September 1990 – property then sold to Penmack Holdings Ltd – Penmack served notice of termination on 30 August 1988 – plaintiff issued writ on 8 March 1989 originally seeking specific performance – further amendment on 3 October 1990 abandoned specific performance and pleaded repudiation and acceptance – appeal from Master's order allowing amendment dismissed – held that acceptance of a repudiation must be pleaded – such matter cannot be left to the perception of a party who is entitled to know with exactness what is alleged – amendment as formulated useless – appeal dismissed with costs to 2nd defendant – Johnson v. Agnew [1980] AC 367; Tilcon Ltd v Land & Real Estate Investments Ltd (1987) 1 WLK 46; Fercometal v Mediterranean (1989) AC 788 considered.
Legal issues: Whether acceptance of a repudiation must be specifically pleaded · Whether the further amendment should be allowed as formulated
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; the order of Nazareth J. setting aside the Master's leave to amend stands, and the further amendment is treated as useless.