Background: Yi Teng Investment Inc. alleged an agreement with Keltic (Brighouse) Development Ltd. for the purchase of custom office and retail space in an unsubdivided property. Yi Teng claimed a present unconditional interest and damages for breach of contract. Keltic contended there was no binding agreement.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

• Breach of Contract: Yi Teng claimed Keltic breached the agreement by not recognizing Yi Teng’s interest and failing to proceed with the sale.
• Subdivision Requirement: The case hinged on whether the subdivision of the property was a condition precedent to the conveyance.
• Abuse of Process: Keltic argued that Yi Teng’s amendments to their pleadings constituted an abuse of process due to inconsistencies.
• Certificate of Pending Litigation: Initially filed by Yi Teng but struck down as it did not create a registrable interest in unsubdivided land.

Court's Decision: The Court of Appeal dismissed Keltic's appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to allow Yi Teng’s amendments. The court held that the amendments, which included claims for a conditional interest and specific performance, did not constitute an abuse of process. The judge found no reversible error and ruled that inconsistencies were not sufficiently egregious to disallow the amendments.

Costs/Awards: The document did not specify the total amount of costs or awards in favor of the successful party.