K.B. Ng

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay and sought leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act.

The action had been automatically stayed because the plaintiff had failed to register its business name.

The court held that the registrar still had jurisdiction to dismiss the action for delay despite the statutory stay.

However, applying the Reid test, the court set aside the dismissal order, finding that the delay was caused by the inadvertence of the plaintiff's former counsel and that the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice.

The court also granted leave to maintain the action, as the failure to register the business name was an innocent oversight that had since been rectified without misleading the public.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $2.75 million obtained against him.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountainview Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.

The court found that the defendant had deliberately evaded service and ignored the proceedings until enforcement was imminent in Hong Kong.

The court declined to consider the merits of the defence due to the defendant's conscious decision not to participate.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $40,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

A group of related corporate plaintiffs alleged that a planning consultant and licensed real estate salesperson breached fiduciary duties during a land acquisition initiative by secretly purchasing the target property through his own company.

The court found that the consultant acted as an agent and fiduciary for the plaintiffs, given the trust placed in him, his role negotiating with the seller, and his undertaking to act on their behalf.

By failing to disclose his personal interest, misleading the plaintiffs about negotiations, and purchasing the property himself, the defendant placed himself in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary obligations.

Although the plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss and failed to establish negligence in the planning advice, the court held that the egregious and deceptive conduct warranted punitive damages.

Punitive damages of $25,000 were awarded to punish and deter such misconduct.