福華街41 43號業主立案法團 對 湛偉明及另一人

福華街41 43號業主立案法團 對 湛偉明及另一人

The tribunal erred in law by failing to make necessary factual inquiries and findings on whether item 1.0 of the tender should have been recalculated after removal of part 4.0; under s16(3) the tribunal should have sought further evidence (including from the contractor) to determine whether the total contract sum...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1691
Parties
Applicant/respondent: 福華街41-43號業主立案法團; First Defendant/appellant: 湛偉明; Second Defendant/appellant: 金美好
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Case Number
HCSA8/2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Heard and Allowed; Remitted to Small Claims Tribunal for Rehearing by a Different Adjudicator
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original adjudicator's decision set aside; matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing by a different adjudicator; appellants awarded costs of the appeal; original hearing costs reserved for the rehearing
Legal Topics
Appeal, Remittal, Calculation of Contract Sum, Duty to Inquire Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance S16(3), Estoppel, Costs
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Estoppel Administrative Law (tribunal Procedure) Appeal Remittal Calculation of Contract Sum Duty to Inquire Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance S16(3) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

福華街41-43號業主立案法團

Applicant/respondent

湛偉明

First Defendant/appellant

金美好

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to High Court / Appeal Heard and Allowed; Remitted to Small Claims Tribunal for Rehearing by a Different Adjudicator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tender schedule item 1.0 was incorrectly calculated by using the original total contract sum after part 4.0 was removed and whether that error increased each unit's contribution
  2. 2 Whether the Small Claims Tribunal failed in its statutory duty to make inquiries (s16(3)) and obtain necessary evidence to determine the calculation issue
  3. 3 Whether the owners' general meeting resolution or estoppel prevents the defendants from challenging the contract sum

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in law by failing to make necessary factual inquiries and findings on whether item 1.0 of the tender should have been recalculated after removal of part 4.0; under s16(3) the tribunal should have sought further evidence (including from the contractor) to determine whether the total contract sum and per‑unit contributions were overstated. Because essential factual determinations were absent and estoppel could not be resolved without those facts, the correct relief was to allow the appeal, set aside the tribunal's decision, and remit the case for rehearing by a different adjudicator while awarding costs to the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original adjudicator's decision set aside; matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing by a different adjudicator; appellants awarded costs of the appeal; original hearing costs reserved for the rehearing

Orders

  • Original decision of the Small Claims Tribunal set aside
  • Matter remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing by a different adjudicator